Tag Archives: culture

To Change The World: Some Reactions So Far

1 Reply

A few thoughts on the book so far:

  1. The first essay makes a convincing point. I’m one of those who believes that Christianity will never be able to dominate a culture. I also believe that nations can’t be Christian. I have little quarrel with anything Hunter says in this first essay.
  2. What Hunter says about ressentiment in the second essay really rings true with me. I can see it in myself. I am so sick of the Christian Right and their unChristian tactics that I find myself naturally gravitating to the other views as a reaction. I’m not around a lot of people who push the views of the Christian Left, so that may be part of it. But even as I try to escape from politics, I find myself continually correcting mistruths and misconstructions, while trying to find the right attitudes that we all should have in such discussions.
  3. As I’ve said before, I think Hunter works too hard at including the neo-Anabaptists in his critiques. Since his final views would be described as neo-Anabaptist by many, Hunter has a hard time separating his arguments from their views. Much of it ends up being semantic, like his discussion of power.

The third essay is excellent, and we’ll begin analyzing it tomorrow.

Essay 2, Chapter 7: Rethinking Power—Theological Reflections

Leave a reply

In our survey of James Davison Hunter’s book To Change The World, we’re ready to look at the last chapter of the second essay. Chapter 7 is called “Rethinking Power—Theological Reflections.” Here’s the abstract from www.jamesdavisonhunter.com:

Only by narrowing an understanding of power to political or economic power can one imagine giving up power and becoming “powerless.” The creation mandate is a mandate to use power in the world in ways that reflect God’s intentions. Thus, the question for the church is not about choosing between power and powerlessness, but rather, how will the church and its people use the power that they have.

The church has two essential tasks. The first is to disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society. The second task is for the church and for Christian believers to decouple the “public” from the “political.” The way of Christ differs. His way operated in complete obedience to God the Father, it repudiated the symbolic trappings of elitism, it manifest compassion concretely out of calling and vocation, and it served the good of all and not just the good of the community of faith.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

The first part of this chapter is one of the weakest links in all of Hunter’s arguments. He sets out to describe why power can’t be separated from human experience, then states that the reason is because anthropology has shown that power can’t be separated from human experience. Oops. Resorting to circular reasoning is one of the surest signs of a weak argument. Hunter then defines power so broadly that it encompasses all human interaction. To rephrase a line from the movie The Incredibles, when everything is power, nothing is.

Power can be rejected. People can refuse to hold power over others. As Todd said in the comment section of the last post, one can seek influence rather than dominion. Hunter could have left this section out without distracting from his argument; in fact, his work would have been much stronger had he done so. Apparently he follows this tangent to try and find something to use against the Neo-Anabaptists.

Hunter then states three facts about power:

  1. Power tends to become an end in itself. “Even voluntary organizations protect their organizational interests against the interests and needs of the very members they are supposed to serve.” (p. 179)
  2. Power always generates its own resistances. “Even the weak possess the power to challenge, subvert, destabilize and oppose.” (p. 179)
  3. Power always seems to carry with it unintended consequences.

As the article begins to address power and theology, the Neo-Anabaptists come under fire. Hunter does make an important concession when he says, “there is subtlety, nuance and range in the theological positions of neo-Anabaptism for which a hurried summary cannot do justice.” (p. 180) This can explain some of the discrepancies commenters have pointed out thus far.

Hunter again argues that Neo-Anabaptism uses “a truncated theory of power,” while I would argue that Hunter’s definition is so broad as to be virtually useless in a discussion of theology, politics and power. When he says that “every grammar and every narrative is an imposition,” (p. 182) his desire to condemn all standard viewpoints has led him to hyperbole.

However, some of his arguments about Christians necessarily participating with the powers of this world are valid. The challenge for Christians is rightly defined as how to be in the world and not of the world. Hunter advocates the use of what he calls a postpolitical witness in the world. To achieve this, two things must be done. First, “Christians must disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society.” (p. 184) As Hunter points out, the way that Christianity has embraced the American political system is merely an outgrowth of the way believers have uncritically immersed themselves in American culture.

The second task is to separate what is public from that which is political. As Hunter explains, politics is a simplification of social life, and society is always much broader than the political arena. He states, “Politics is just one way to engage the world and, arguably, not the highest, best, most effective, nor most humane way to do so.” (p. 185) I’m actually a bit surprised that Hunter doesn’t do with the word “politics” what he does with the word “power,” for it would be easy to redefine both words to encompass all human social interaction. This time, however, he resists the temptation, probably because it wouldn’t advance his argument.

So what kind of “power” does Hunter think that Christians should be seeking? Well, the kind of power that isn’t really power. He says that this “power” has four characteristics:

  1. It is derived from complete intimacy and submission to the Father.
  2. It rejects status, reputation and privilege.
  3. It is motivated by love for God and love for fellow man.
  4. It is completely noncoercive toward outsiders.

(If you’re keeping score at home, this is what we mere mortals call “powerlessness”… but I guess I’ve voiced my disagreement enough)

The third essay will explore what it means to live out the model of power we learn from Christ.

Essay 2, Chapter 6: Illusion, Irony and Tragedy

6 Replies

The sixth chapter of the second part of Hunter’s book (To Change The World) is “Illusion, Irony and Tragedy.” Here’s the abstract from www.jamesdavisonhunter.com:

Politics has become a “social imaginary” that defines the horizon of understanding and the parameters for action. What is never challenged is the proclivity to think of the Christian faith and its engagements with culture in political terms. For all, the public has been conflated with the political. But the ressentiment that marks the way they operate makes it clear that a crucial part of what motivates politics is a will to dominate. However, for politics to be about more than power, it depends upon a realm that is independent of the political process. The deepest irony is that the Christian faith has the possibility of autonomous institutions and practices that could be a source of ideals and values that could elevate politics to more than a quest for power. Instead, by nurturing its resentments, they become functional Nietzcheans, participating in the very cultural breakdown they so ardently strive to resist.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

“It is not an exaggeration to conclude that the public witness of the church today has become a political witness…” (p. 169) Hunter starts with this assertion, then quickly moves to “So what?”

The first problem is the fact that the state can’t solve all human problems. Laws reflect values, but, as Hunter explains, they “cannot generate values, or instill values, or settle the conflict over values.” (p. 171) The belief that the state can truly address the principal concerns of society is an illusion.

The second problem is a series of ironies:

  • Politics is only about power unless it can depend on a sphere that is independent. Values have to be more than political slogans, but Christians have done more to politicize values over the last half century than any other group in society.
  • The political activity of Christians has been counterproductive to the goals they seek to obtain. Hunter says, “But the consequence of the whole-hearted and uncritical embrace of politics by Christians has been… to reduce Christian faith to a political ideology…” (p. 172)
  • Political participation often becomes an avoidance of responsibility. In Hunter’s words, “It is… much easier to vote for a politician who champions child welfare than to adopt a baby born in poverty…” (p. 172)

The final problem is the conformity of the church to “the spirt of the age,” the making of politics the church’s principal witness to the world. Christians did not create the present political culture, but they have become full participants in it. When Christians build their identity on the resentment and hostility that is today’s political arena, they are accentuating the things that separate them from non-Christians. They are contributing to the very cultural breakdown they are protesting against.

Essay 2, Chapter 5: The Neo-Anabaptists

7 Replies

These days I’m summarizing James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World. The book is made up of three separate essays; we’re up to the fifth chapter of the second essay. This chapter is entitled “The Neo-Anabaptists.” Here’s the abstract from Hunter’s website:

The mythic ideal that animates the neo-Anabaptist position is the ideal of true and authentic New Testament Christianity and the primitive church of the apostolic age. Constantinianism is a multifaceted heresy that surfaced and resurfaced throughout history. The archetype of neo-Constantinianism is the founding of the American republic, which has a strong view of the church and a separatist impulse. While the neo-Anabaptists attempt to reject it, they are also defined and depend upon it.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists share several characteristics: they tend to reject undiluted capitalism, they tend to be from the upper classes socio-economically, and they reject the discourse of the Christian Right. There aren’t a lot of Neo-Anabaptists in the United States, but the movement has a growing appeal among the younger generations.

Neo-Anabaptists seek a return to the pure Christianity of the New Testament church. (Could that be why so many within my movement are drawn to this viewpoint?—Tim) Part of the restoration spirit of the original Anabaptists was a rejection of infant baptism, insisting on adult baptism (hence the name of the movement). Anabaptist teaching continues in small groups like the Quakers, the Mennonites, etc. Neo-Anabaptists have adopted many of the teachings, but come from a broad range of Christian groups.

The Edict of Constantine is seen as one of the historical low points, the moment when the church fully sold herself to the State. The church embraced the powers of this world, with their violence and war. An ethic of coercion and power became common within Christianity. Thus the Neo-Anabaptists consider that the greatest harm to the church was done by the church itself. Their ressentiment focuses on this blending of church and State.

According to Hunter, the goal of the Neo-Anabaptists is “to lead theology and the church to a genuinely postsecular self-understanding.” (p. 160, emphasis Hunter’s) They emphasize the sharp contrast between the church and the world. They see worship as the central calling of Christianity.

Hunter points out that the Neo-Anabaptists, despite claiming to reject the systems of this world, have adopted the language of politics, speaking time and again of “the politics of Jesus.” Like the other two groups mentioned, Neo-Anabaptists make no distinction between the public and the political.

Hunter’s principal accusation against the Neo-Anabaptists is that they define themselves in terms of the very system they reject. More than standing for something, they stand against something. By using political terms, they themselves become political.

Essay 2, Chapter 4: The Christian Left

3 Replies

In our walk-through of James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World, we’re up to the fourth chapter of the second essay. This essay is entitled “The Christian Left.” Here’s the abstract from Hunter’s website:

Progressives have always been animated by the myth of equality and community and therefore see history as an ongoing struggle to realize these ideals. The key word in the progressive lexicon is justice. The biblical tradition that Christian progressives appeal to is the prophetic tradition in its condemnation of the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, the weak, and the marginalized. However, in its commitment to social change through politics and politically oriented social movements, in its conflation of the public with the political, in its own selective use of Scripture to justify political interests, and in its confusion of theology with national interests and identity, the Christian Left imitates the Christian Right.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

Within the U.S., the Christian Left has not been particularly strong, at least compared with its overseas success in movements like liberation theology. Inside the U.S., politically progressive Christians were principally found within the mainline denominations, although there is now a growing number of evangelicals that align themselves with the political left.

Whereas conservatives are angry over the harm done to their nation, progressives focus on the harm done to the weak and disadvantaged. They show great hostility toward the leaders of the Christian Right, feeling that these men have hijacked the Christian faith. Not only that, but those of the Christian Left feel that the Christian Right has severely damaged their country through their actions. The ressentiment of the Left is not directed toward non-Christians but toward the Christian Right.

The Christian Left also has its own quest for power, first for “reclaiming the Christian faith,” then spreading into the political arena. Though the Christian Left often claims to be non-partisan, their opposition to the Right typically leads them to support the agenda of the Democratic party, and many progressives, in fact, are active within that party.

The grand irony is that, in opposing the Christian Right, the Christian Left ends up using the same methods of their opponents. As Hunter says at the end of this chapter: “The political goals are different, but the realpolitik is, in essence, identical to the long-standing instrumentalization of the Christian conservative constituency by the Republican party—control over the power of the State.” (p. 149)