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

Written by James Davison Hunter

Narrated by Lee Goettl

The call to make the world a better place is inherent in the Christian belief and practice. But why have efforts to change the world by Christians so often failed or gone tragically awry? And how might Christians in the twenty-first century live in ways that have integrity with their traditions and are more truly transformative? In To Change the World, James Davison Hunter offers persuasive answers to these questions.



Hunter begins with a penetrating appraisal of the most popular models of world-changing among Christians today, highlighting the ways they are inherently flawed and therefore incapable of generating the change to which they aspire. Because change implies power, all Christian eventually embrace strategies of political engagement. Hunter offers a critique of the political theologies of the Christian Right and Left and the Neo-Anabaptists. Hunter argues that all too often these political theologies worsen the very problems they are designed to solve. What is really needed is a different paradigm of Christian engagement with the world. He offers real-life examples, large and small, of what can be accomplished through the practice of "faithful presence." Such practices will be more fruitful, Hunter argues, more exemplary, and more deeply transfiguring than any more overtly ambitious attempts can ever be.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tantor Media, Inc
• Release date: Apr 30, 2024
• ISBN: 9798855543186

James Davison Hunter

James Davison Hunter is a sociologist who is the LaBrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia and the founder and executive director of the university's Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

Reviews for To Change The World

[Fit For Faith 〣 Your Christian Ministry. · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

It was by divine providence that I read just days earlier a book about Constantinianism and the birth hour of the Roman Catholic State Church, and just weeks earlier the highly problematic book 'Total Truth' by Nancy Pearcey.

The proclamation of Neo-Calvinism and sublime endorsement of Dominionism in Pearcey's book is brought to whole another level in this book, which does not only endorse Pearcey's book, but essentially copies entire passages from it. This book goes now as far as to specifically endorse the 7-Mountain Mandate with all its theological details, while it elsewhere speaks about a Cultural Mandate.

The book's chief aim is to move the US to the very same Constantinianism which catapulted the Roman Catholic (State) Church into power (accompanied by Roman Paideia whereof the author of course would be part of), no matter how hard the author later tries to distract from that notion, by specifically and hypocritically criticizing Constantinianism and the merging of state and religion. But the fact that the author sees the need to criticize Constantinianism (probably as proactive defense because his philosophy demands that precise conclusion), shows already that he has gone way too far, into preaching a message that is the very antithesis to the biblical teachings of IESOUS CHRISTOS.

This book is one of the most mischievous and evil books I have read so far. This is noticeable e.g. when speaking about the 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs' book or the Waldensians as if being good, but knowing very well from everything else in the book (especially the unabashed preaching of Catholicism) that both are totally contrary to all the evil the book teaches. The author is double-tongued and highly divisive. The book can best be compared to a molotov-cocktail thrown into the American church. There are no better words. I have always wondered what happened to the US in the past decade. Now having read this book, published in 2010, I have a much better understanding how this and probably other similar evil works heavily contributed to the deception of the American church.



WHAT THE BOOK ESSENTIALLY ENDORSES

- Roman Catholicism, Second Vatican Council, John Paul II, Eucharist, Calvinism, Egaliatarianism, Gnosticism, Humanism, Marxism, Republican party (USA), Social G‑spel, Cultural Mandate, 7-Mountain-Mandate, Focus on the Family, Kevin Dobson, Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, Allister McWrath, Timothy Keller, Promise Keepers, The Pope, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, J.I. Packer, J.R.R. Tolkien, Rick Warren, Christianity Today, New Westminster Confession, Ekklesia (12) Movement (Dominionism) ...



HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS

"This Paradigm is most obviously embraced by the Neo-Anabaptist theologians and clergy, but they also share an affinity with separatist factions and the traditionalist Catholic Community. In some conservative evangelical denominations, such as the Truly Reformed in the Presbyterian Church in America, or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and among most Pentecostals.

While these Christians would not share much in common with Neo-Anabaptist politically, or in terms of social class, they tend to operate with a two kingdoms view of church in the world. That also moves them to increasingly withdraw into their own communities with less and less interest in any engagement with the larger world. It is also in the purity from paradigm, where one would locate those Ecumenical gestures in Christianity toward a New Monasticism. This is an ... movement that identifies itself by a number of commitments, among them a commitment to relocation to the abandoned places of Empire."



SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT

- Endorsement of Roman Catholicism (the author's painfully obvious religion), (Neo-)Calvinism and Neo-Anabaptists. Quote: "One person can stand at the crossroads and change things for good. Such as Martin Luther John Calvin, Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards or William Booth. Bishop Tutu. John Paul II. Dorothy Day. Or for ill, such as Frederick Nietzsche, Adolf H., Stalin, and so on ..."

- He commits clear blasphemy when putting Buddha, Muhammad, Plato, Augustine, Charles Darwin in the very same category as THEOS:

"When the world's need is most acute, great leaders rise to the occasion and provide the courage and vision to address that need. In all epics of the world's history, we shall find the great man to have been the indispensable savior of his epic. In the realm of the spirit it was Moses, the Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad among others. In the case of war, it was Julius Caesar, Alexander, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Washington, Bismarck, and others. In the case of the intellect, it was Plato and Aristotle. St Paul, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Jonathan Edwards, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, and the like ..." (This passage is nearly identical to Pearcey's book).

- Plain endorsement of Gnosticism and the great anti-Christ Marcion as 'astute', 'brilliant' and 'outstanding'. I never read a Christian book which did not criticize those when touching the topic. But an endorsement is unheard of. Unbelievable.

"The urban centers of the Mediterranean also became the setting for various voices in different parts of the Empire to be heard and to engage each other. It's the home of the Jewish philosopher Philo as well as Bishop Dimitrios, Clement and Origen [false teacher]. Alexandria was especially important as a center of theological imagination. Needless to say, Rome's importance grew by the generation. As Robert Wilkins observed: Almost all of the outstanding Christian thinkers of the second century spent some time in Rome: Valentinous, the brilliant Gnostic teacher and author of the G‑spel of Truth. Marcion a radical Christian leader and biblical scholar and fanatical follower of Paul. ~Agasapus~, an early historian of the Christian movement and Justin Martyr and Athenagoras among the earliest and most astute apologists of the Christian faith."

The author also speaks elsewhere in the book about Aeons, an idea connected with Valentinianism. Valentinianism rejected the incarnation, crucifixion, and bodily resurrection of IESOUS.

- Plain endorsement of Egalitarianism (yet another evil):

"With first stories of popular violence coming from France, many were also deeply suspicious of the excesses of popular Democratic reform. Still, they promoted an Egalitarianism that was unusual within their social class and among other things. They did much to make Great Britain more Democratic ..."

- Plain endorsement of Humanism (yet another evil):

"Also foundational to the intellectual success of the Reformation was its strategic alliance with the humanist movement. Already well established by the time Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the doors of the church in Wittenberg. The humanists, represented most prominently by the person and work of Desiderius Erasmus, had a vast and international network in German Swiss and Austrian universities. They provided texts, knowledge of languages and new standards of scholarship, all of which inform the academic formation of the reformers. They also had softened the ground, culturally and intellectually through their satirical attacks on clerics and Scholastics. At least they had a disproportionate influence over publishing. Your support was both indispensable. As Alister McGrath puts it, without Humanism there would have been no Reformation."

- Plain endorsement of Marxism (yet another evil):

"The Enlightenment's own quest for certainty resulted not in the discovery of new certainties but rather in a pervasive and astringent skepticism that questions all, suspects all, distrusts and disbelieves all. Even in the early decades of the 17th century, the great poet John Donne (Roman Catholic) wrote presciently of this new age. New philosophy calls all in doubt. Marx and Freud made titanic contributions to the project of modern skepticism. Marx, of course challenges the givenness of the social order and its structure of inequality. Freud challenged the relationship of morality, consciousness and personality, and the very nature of and borders between psychopathology and mental health. These were only starting points."



SOCIAL G‑SPEL / 7-MOUNTAIN MANDATE / CULTURAL MANDATE / NEO-CALVINISM

- The most obvious endorsement of the 7-Mountain-Mandate I have ever seen in a book outside the New Apostolic Reformation (which is usually criticized by Calvinists ...)

"A number of new groups emerged with this broader agenda. Groups such as 'Legacy', the '~Clapham Group' [usually called the 'Clapham Sect', or 'Clapham Saints'] and 'Reclaiming the Seven Mountains of Culture'. These groups vary considerably in mission and sophistication. But there are clear continuities among their leaders and in the logic between some of these groups and the more established Christian Right. Consider the founding rationale of 'Reclaiming the Seven Mountains of Culture'. It is worth quoting at length.

In every city of the world, an unseen battle rages for Dominion over G-d's creation and the souls of people. This battle is fought on 7 strategic fronts. Looming like mountains over the culture to shape and influence its destiny. Over the years, the church slowly retreated from its place of influence on these mountains [entirely wrong, up to Constantine there was zero involvement], leaving a void now filled with darkness. When we lose our influence, we lose the culture. When we lose the culture, we fail to advance the kingdom of G-d [heretical teaching].

Now, a generation stands in desperate need. It's time to fight for them and take back the mountains of influence:

1. The mountain of Government where evil is either restrained or endorsed.
2. The mountain of Education where truths or lies about G-d and his creation are taught.
3. The mountain of Media where information is interpreted through the lens of good and evil.

Find the full review at this ministry's website.

[skybalon · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A humbly written but incredible book that all Christians should read. He discusses with great background data that make his arguments incredibly persuasive. He manages to praise and criticize all parts of the political spectrum without feeling biased one way or the other.

Ultimately his main point is that attempting to change culture from the top down--from a position of power, is not an effective way. Has never really been an effective way. Then he lays out how it has been done in the past and, at a high level, how it can be done today.

He has no trouble with Christians being involved in politics, they just need to understand that's not the best way to change the world.

Highly Highly Recommended.

[chriskrycho · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A really excellent book.

[deusvitae · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Hunter sets out, over three essays, to deconstruct and then reconstruct the Christian's relation to culture.

Essay I begins by describing how Christians often view culture and the means by which to change culture, that culture is ultimately an individual thing and that by reforming individuals one can reform culture. Hunter then demonstrates that such is a misguided and wrong way to look at culture-- culture has been and remains the product of historical traditions constantly shaped and reshaped by elite forces within the culture. He goes through history and shows how, partly by historical accident, and partly by the work of the elites, how Christianity has and has not influenced cultures since its origins.

Essay II is a fundamental reconsideration of power. He describes first how Christians have been drawn into the philosophy of power and domination, and then shows how our culture has politicized everything. Over three chapters he describes first the "Christian Right," then the "Christian left," and then what he calls "neo-Anabaptism," the anti-political theologies of Yoder, Hauerwas, et al. The descriptions attempt to show how each group looks at the world and the challenges therein and the myths they propagate to justify their ideology and participation; his descriptions are, on the whole, even-handed, and if he singles out a particular group for more criticism, it is actually the "Christian left".

And then, in what should be required reading for everyone, in Essay II and chapter 6, he demonstrates the fundamental problem:

All three groups have legitimate grievances and concerns. There is merit in the argument each presents. Yet they all bitterly oppose one another. And they all politicize their concerns.

Hunter, on the basis of many modern sociologists, then suggests that there is a distinction between "democracy" and "the state." "Democracy" does involve the politicians and the voters, but the real power is in "the state." "The state" includes the bureaucrats who end up doing most of the real work of governance and regulation, unelected, present regardless of administration, and only accountable in times of crisis, with their goal mostly in terms of efficiency. More indirectly, it would also feature the forces in our society that determine political direction-- think tanks, political committees, and others who may never stand for election but seem to be pulling the strings. Hunter draws out the two implications: first, that the state is not as subject to the electoral will as is often naively assumed (on the basis of idealistic founding documents), and secondly, that politics and government are not sufficient for the task of solving challenges of social ills or deterioration of values. He also shows how Christians are partly responsible for politicizing moral values, emphasize voting over actual responsibility in "political" action like personally helping the needy, caring for elderly, adopting children, etc., and how they ultimately are working to destroy the culture they are trying to save. He concludes the section by lamenting how all three groups are fueled by bitterness, anger, and resentment, and how none of these are really constructive.

Essay II concludes with an analysis of power and the reality that we all have some form of power in life and our goal ought to be proper stewards of such power.

Essay III is an attempt to be more constructive. Hunter speaks of the challenges of difference and dissolution-- how do we handle the fact that people in our world (and our culture) are different, and how do we walk the tightrope between conformity to versus isolation from the world? He then describes the three prevalent attitudes toward culture when it comes to dissolution-- "defensive against," "relevance to," and "purity from," i.e., the attitudes of the Right, the Left, and the "neo-Anabaptists," respectively. He then shows that all three really do not work-- the first leads to what has happened, almost complete irrelevance, the second would go too far the other way, and the third does not respect our need to be the "city on a hill".

Hunter's thesis is that we should instead seek a "faithful presence." We are to be within society and culture as faithful disciples of Christ. He speaks of the imperative of the Great Commission in more terms than merely geographic-- we ought to "go to all nations," meaning not just every nation-state on every continent, but also into every profession, every group, every institution, and live faithful lives to Christ, based on faith in Christ, hope of the resurrection, and love for everyone.

Hunter is a denominationalist and ecumenist, but on the whole, his analysis is spot on. Christians are not impacting culture because they've put all their eggs in the political basket whereas the places where culture is nutured and formed are almost entirely without Christian witness, and therefore, without Christian participation. He instructively cites Jeremiah 29:4-7 and God's calling for Israel in exile as a parallel: we are to make sure that YHWH is Lord, but we are to live our lives in the place of our "exile," seek its welfare and thus our own welfare, and things will be as well as they are going to be.

The book is most certainly worth consideration.