Should We Change Culture? Can We?

Thanks to those of you who've passed on kind thoughts and prayers for my son.  I did talk to the assistant principal of his school and they're taking it super-seriously, which I appreciate.

I've been inundated with comments that I should read James Davison Hunter's new book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, including one email review (scathing) from our own Dave Thom.  Evidently Christianity Today (not a favorite of mine, which is a topic for another day--or not) called it something like...I'm paraphrasing...the most important book ever written.  So I've picked up a copy to see what we see. 

As of about 25 pages in, I'm intrigued to be sure.  Hunter is addressing a subject near and dear to our hearts at this fair blog--can we influence culture?  His erudite answer--no, or at least not in the sense that Christians traditionally try to influence culture.  He takes on basically every denomination and Christian culture warriors like Chuck Colson and James Dobson.  He takes on the thought that the way to change culture is to convert people and therefore "change culture one person at a time."  

Is it your hope to change culture?  Or to change the world?  What's your battle plan?

Comments

[steven hamilton]

not having read the book, i admit that i don't dig on the "culture wars" and the self-identified "christian cultural warriors"; i do resonate with that last line, possibly because it reminds me of mother theresa...i wouldn't have helped and changed the ten-thounsandth person if i hadn't begun by helping the first person in front of me and the next one after that...

[Vinceation]

To be honest, I think it's the sub-cultures of the religious that need change as much as, if not more than, the dominant culture at large.
Sometimes I do wish I could make those changes happen, especially the culturally-conditioned air of certainty I often observe: I witnessed an interaction between two Christians yesterday that ripped my heart out not so much because a lot of what they were saying seemed peripheral and I didn't agree with it (though a lot of what they were saying did indeed seem peripheral and I didn't agree with it) but because both parties said everything with such certainty. "Of course the truth is..." or "Obviously, I know the truth but..." Have they been conditioned to believe that faith is about being certain instead of... having faith!? Their conversation would've offended every non-Christian (atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever) I know.
I'm sure it's just as impossible to change as any cultural tendency, so I probably shouldn't wear myself out worrying too much. But it's hard to love those people when they don't even realize how offensive they're being because they're just dishing out what they've been fed.

[cjdm]

I too am reading this book. Hunter is a super-smart observer of cultural trends and cultural formation. He crucially understands that institutions themselves are never value-neutral. He takes us beyond the pragmatic use of language to see what work that language is doing in the formation of practices, habits, and belief-systems.

I don't agree with him on everything. He will land on the centrality of Eucharist where I would land on the centrality of the sacramental communion of the Holy Spirit. His elitism doesn't necessarily pass the "Galilean Fisherman Test." However, his unsentimental look at actual cultural formation, and the apparent necessity of the forms of "high" culture (art, music, abstract thought, etc) for the development of articulate identity and the establishment of counter-institutions for the purposes of discipleship seems to me dead right.

I have a feeling that, whether we like it or not, this book will provide important language for the next decade of conversation about Christian engagement with culture.

[PB]

I'm confused - what do we mean when we say "culture"? It seems like any time any group of people anywhere gets together, *bang*, they've created a culture by definition.

If we're talking music, food, clothing, architecture, etc., then I like to think I'm adding to or "changing" the world of music by bringing my own voice to the mix.

If we're talking the ethos of various Christian subgroups, well, I like to think I'm adding my own voice to the mix of the one that I'm in.

I'm at a place where I don't ever see this happening, but I somehow remain to hope that I will change the world. Or, alternatively, change my world.

[bsergott]

I don't think the Church has any business trying to change culture. I believe we are called to change hearts and lives. Or, better yet, we are more called to put people into an encounter with the living God, who will change their hearts and lives. That is what I believe it means to make disciples of all nations. Once the people in our care encounter God, we get out of the way so He can do His work.

I look at St. Patrick, and I see a guy who did not try to change culture at all. He walked alongside the culture of the people and used their common symbols and contexts to show them the love of Jesus. It was subversive and very Kingdom oriented. In that, God changed the people, which in turn changed the culture. This does not mean, however, that we lose our prophetic voice in the world. I believe that we are supposed to speak out against systemic injustice. But my main "battle plan", as you so aptly put it, Dave, is still to give individual people an experience of God. Then, he does the rest.

I think the global Church needs to stop being distracted with political and social agendas aimed at changing culture. One example would be abortion. I am radically pro-life, but I left the national movement because of its distracting qualities. I did not see the value of holding dead fetuses in the faces of women coming out of abortion clinics. I am not sure we should even be focused on changing the laws. If the Church were doing what it should be, supporting women in unplanned pregnancies and loving them into life, it wouldn't matter whether abortion was legal or not. No one would make the choice to get one. They would be solid and secure in their faith and in their experiences of a God who loves them. Then it would be much easier to choose life.

OK, I have said enough. I just feel strongly about sticking to the main and the plain. It is all about Jesus and bringing people to a place of having a tangible experience of Him. The rest seems to fall into place.

[Marcia]

I think there is a "Kingdom" culture which is neither religious nor political but at the same time it supercedes and affects the religious and the political. I think that the culture of the Kingdom is spiritual and relational.

I think of Daniel in the Bible, for example. He was forcefully submerged into a radically different and "defiling" Babylonian culture and yet, his response was that he purposed IN HIS HEART to remain pure - to continue to seek the Lord. Because of this, God placed him as a direct and personal influence with several babylonian kings (who did change some of the laws). When circumstances and revelations caused his heart to be troubled, so much so that his countenance changed (he became depressed), he kept the matter to himself but called upon God.

Because of his tremendous prayer life and the priority he gave to his relationship with God through disciplined prayer, Daniel was noted by the angel Gabriel as one GREATLY BELOVED. In addition, Daniel was even given answers, even though he couldn't understand some of those answers.

So, did Daniel change the culture where he lived? I think he did. Was that his motive -- in other words, was he trying to change the culture? I don't think so. He simply set his heart to seek God. That's my goal, too.

[Brent]

Should we try to change culture? No.

But the other question he addresses in his critique of the neo-Anabaptist movement, is should be stand against culture?

Yoder, Hauerwas and others argue that the right and left are wrong to seek change in political power. They argue that Christianity, by its very nature, can only stand opposed to such power if it is to be authentic. this is not incompatible with the idea of changing the world by living simple, faithful, personal lives. Hunter's main critique of the movement seems to be that it's just too negative, but he overly-focuses on rhetoric from Hauerwas (known for his bold acidic statements) to make his point. Why quote Claibourne's liturgy instead of pointing out all the stuff Claibourne's community in Philly has done to change the poverty-stricken neighborhood they live in? Definitely a weaker and less convincing part of the book.

[Paul]

I think there's something in each of us that wants to be known and to take our place in the world...and making an impact on our world. Seems that's part of our calling as human beings...so why would a desire to change the culture be a bad thing, just because we're followers of Jesus?

I don't see the point of trying to encourage others to make surface level changes...to merely be good boys and girls (perhaps judging some of the Christian voices), but I'm liking more and more my own 'life' and who I am. I'm encouraged to tell others and introduce them to my own experience.

I also hope to change culture, merely by serving others well in business. The audience size I anticipate will be dependent on how we do in business.

[Peter Eavis]

The Internet has so decentralized culture that I am not sure there is anything left that we could call "our culture" or the "dominant culture." Even if there were, the Internet makes it harder for anyone body of people, for example, "Christians," to change.

[Dave T.]

I've been inundated with comments that I should read James Davison Hunter's new book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, including one email review (scathing) from our own Dave Thom.

Did I scathe you, Dave S., or Hunter? I honestly don't remember. My scather is always sharp so I really could have. Maybe it depends on how one interprets Hunter. For example, a culture-watcher-maker friend of mine, Glenn Lucke, recommended Hunter's CD to me and I thought it was GREAT. So, perhaps, you were doing your best to repeat a Hunter-type thought and I scathed you or your interpretation of Hunter? I just don't know. Y'know, if it's Tuesday, I scathe Hunter. If it's Wednesday, I scathe Brent. If it's Thursday, it's Dave S. I scathe myself on Fridays. Okay, time to get serious: I planned on buying the book AND reading it. I better get crackin'.

[Rich]

I'm not sure the desire to change a culture is the goal.
I have to go back to the Book.
What do we find?
We find a group of these Christians, walking a new path, behaving differently by & large, than their dominant cultures around them.
Tough as hell at times too, I'm sure.
I think of Corinth, etc
I don't see a mandate to try & 'change' a people for change's sake, but rather a new way of proceeding, that happens to ofttimes be in conflict with the "spirit of the age" that continues today.

So, what am I saying?
Shoot, I dunno really: except maybe "No".
We're not to set out to change a culture: we're supposed to follow Jesus,and if that happens to affect cultural change?
Cool!

most humble .02
R

[Dave Schmelzer]

Hi Dave. No, I wasn't feeling scathed, but I was remembering that you'd passed on a negative review of the book. But your comment made me wonder, so I called it up. It was actually a review you passed on from Mike Metzger that said churches who listened to Hunter would become "inglorious bastards." Which I took to be negative. And Metzger may be right--again, I'm only 25 pages into the book.

[Dave T.]

Ah...actually, Metzger likes Hunter very much. Metzger was saying that churches that "keep up the good work" (my phrasing) and retain a currency of popularity because they're exactly that - popular - and not founded on core Biblical truth(s) - will find themselves inconsequential one day. Popularity passes away eventually. I can't remember what an inglorious bastard is supposed to be, but churches that listen to Hunter might be better off.

Personally, I think churches that THINK are best off. You guys think. Think or die. Ipso facto, you guys are going to be just fine.

Hunter attempts a great new paradigm of reading history, so I gather: it's that there've only been a few great persons (usually men) who have changed history. VERY few. It's a "history changes from the top down" and not "from the bottom up" view.

Therefore, influence those few top people, etc. But that's probably a very unsophisticated way of putting it. It matters to Hunter that institutions sway society and its people, therefore, address institutions, and you'll address its leading people. Metzger's most recent posting was especially provocative in this, when it comes to higher ed as an institution.

[Dave T.]

Can I reply to my reply, to reach Dave S.? Re-read Metzger: an "inglorious bastard" of a church takes Hunter's ideas (or what Hunter says is God's ideas) and strap them to the popular church's engine and it becomes an even more dysfunctional engine destined to come undone. Rather than tweak the engine: replace it entirely. So says Metzger of what Hunter says. Man, I feel like a Rabbi commenting on a Rabbi commenting on a Rabbi. Re-reading what Metzger says, as brief as it is, is very appealing to me. As a former CCC-er, it wouldn't be. But this isn't your Daddy's Crusade.

[Dave Schmelzer]

Not the first time I've misread something. Thanks for the clarification.

[Christopher]

Not having read or even heard of the book, I can only respond to what seems like the rank individualism of the bottom line - "change culture one person at a time". Having just attended the first session of an Ethnic Church Summit which was convened by the female chief of the Natick "praying indians" tribe, I hear an unreflective bias that the only people worth changing are those who make decisions for themselves. The notion of a family unit, a community, or a whole tribe turning their lives over to Jesus is off the table (which leaves out a good portion of the people groups of the earth).

Also off the table is the notion of leveraging the gospel to impact "the system" so that it isn't biased against - for grins, let's pick the most obvious example of a truly underprivileged people who don't get the support of white American Christendom - illegal aliens.

I think justice-minded folks (and perhaps artists) would have a hard time with the premise of the gospel only being allowed to impact one person at a time. Jesus seemed to act and speak in such a way as to impact the one and move the millions.

Leads me to wonder whether this author's definition of culture has to do with "thought" rather than "action", which would underscore the Western bias.

I prefer Andy Crouch's premise (in his book, Culture Making) that we impact culture by creating culture. That's where I'd put my money while not neglecting to love "the one" in front of me in a concrete way. To my mind, loving the one authenticates rather than replaces one's culture-making efforts.

[Dave Schmelzer]

Just to be clear: Hunter is saying that the "change culture by changing one person at a time" is the dominant evangelical view. He's arguing AGAINST that view.

[Dave Schmelzer]

And--what do you know?--he addresses and dismisses Andy Crouch two pages later. Just read that section.

[General Kafka]

We are the salt of the earth. We're not making concrete, or salt. We are the salt.