Well dear friend I finally did it. STS-133, the final mission launch for the space shuttle Discovery, was inspiring to watch from up close and personal. My wife and I got invited to attend by some friends and we were 3 miles from ground zero at the Kennedy Space Center. It was a perfect launch right on schedule! We heard there were 150,000 in the Cape Canaveral area for the launch, but we had some of the best seats in the house just 3 miles from ground zero. It was 3, 2, 1 and then the bright flames ignited and off she went. It started out slow and seemed to simply levitate in place for a bit. Then the flash got brighter and we began to hear the sounds of ignition. Not more than a few seconds later and she had passed the launch tower. Smoke was everywhere. Then the shuttle started picking up speed and she lifted into the air heading out over the Atlantic with that huge plume of white smoke following her through the air. Then we started to hear a low rumble that grew in intensity in waves and in a few seconds it was louder than the finish line at the Daytona 500! The hot wind was blowing in our faces and the shuttle quickly reached speeds of over 2000 miles an hour. Then the external tanks dropped off and a few minutes later she was gone. At least gone to our view, but we still heard the communications with NASA as the Shuttle reached the "no return" point and was off to outer space! The whole thing lasted about two minutes but what a rush! God bless Discovery and may those brave men and women have fantastic success and a happy return. Hopefully, we'll catch the reentry in just over a week.
On another note - just finished a Biography of Jonathan Edwards by George Marsden that was superb. And, I also finished a book entitled Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development edited by David Wells. Both were excellent reads. The Edwards Biography was superb in its research and depth. Like the other Marsden books I have read, this one did not disappoint. Edwards is shown to be a man of brilliance whose absolute dedication to Christ is incredibly inspiring and humbling to this reader all at the same time. Edwards' ability to see through the bologna and hit the issues head on is impressive. His brilliance comes through at every level. His theological and philosophical insights are clearly discussed along with the great issues that proved challenging for him personally and at the family level. His wife is shown as the incredibly gifted woman and partner that she proved to be along with his wonderful children. Edwards' pivotal role in the Great Awakening is without parallel in America. His blend of heartfelt religious piety with a firm and consistent commitment to orthodox and historic Calvinism make him one of the last of the Reformers and Puritans to have such a powerful influence on the world stage. While we celebrate Edwards' contributions we mourn the liberalism that has eroded the church. We also mourn the basic departure from his legacy (and the gospel he loved) of the modern conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in an effort to "reach generation X". This not only should be seen as an insult to generation X (I guess the gospel is not quite good enough for this generation right?) but also an embarrassment for the modern leaders and pastors in the PCA and other conservative reformed groups.
The Wells' book was also very good. It has a an all star cast of contributors and covered three basic schools of Reformed theological development in America: the Dutch school, the Princeton theologians and the Southern Presbyterians. All of these groups are discussed in terms of their theological contributions and emphasis as well as their philosophical insights. The Dutch focus on engaging culture, the Princeton focus on doctrinal consistency and faithfulness, and the Southern focus on piety and church development are three key areas that the modern Reformed church is struggling to balance. My sneaky suspicion is that most pastors are hugely ignorant of the great heritage we have in all of these three traditions because most are busy trying to just get through their days as pastors. Few of the PCA pastors (my denomination) have much vision beyond their church doors and local communities. Unfortunately, those who do have a larger vision too often have drifted away from the roots that are inside the church doors (in its history and heritage) and as a result are drifting from the Gospel into the world. Don't get me wrong, we haven't abandoned the faith yet but we just don't believe it is the answer to the modern problems. So rather then deny the faith, the typical modern PCA pastor just ignores it and goes on with whatever program or fad happens to be the latest thing in vogue coming down from the denominational leadership. Perhaps if we as a denomination knew who we are and had any confidence in that old time gospel then, just maybe, we would be more faithfully engaged with our non-reformed and even non-Christian neighbors. The assumption of the book seems to be that when the Reformed churches depart from her roots it not only is bad for them, it is bad for the church at large, and bad for the culture. This book is helpful in bringing clarity to a number of great Reformed leaders in our history. The other great strengths of the book are the extensive footnotes and the superb bibliography for those interested in further study. I highly recommend this book!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
To Change the World: A Review
On the recommendation of a pastor friend of mine, I recently read To Change the World by James Davison Hunter. My wife and I have been discussing the book and I figured I would put down some thoughts for future reference.
First of all, I must admit, that in general, I found the book quite disappointing and uninspiring. In fact, it seemed to me a bit of a downer. There were, however, some helpful insights that I did appreciate, although from my perspective there are serious flaws with his argument and his conclusion. I want to be clear, though, that it is entirely possible that I misunderstood his intent, because I found the book at times burdensome to try to understand.
Hunter initially describes what he thinks is the main, conservative Evangelical Christian view of how culture changes, and then attempts to discredit such leading advocates as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Nancy Pearcy. Basically, he thinks this view is that the only and primary way to change culture is by changing peoples' hearts and minds so they could have an individual impact on changing the culture. As more and more people come to Christ, and individual Christians begin to think more Christianly, culture will automatically become more Christian. And, of course, the primary thing these Christians are supposed to do when they think more Christianly is vote for right wing conservatives. They will put conservative judges on the bench who will legislate Christian morality to a culture that used to be somewhat Christian, but has since rejected Christianity for secularism. In effect, he views conservative Evangelical Christians as sore losers who refuse to admit that they have lost the culture wars, and should give up fighting for a Christian America, at least on the political front. These Christians are also mean spirited in their tone, have unrealistic expectations on how to change culture, and are basically ignorant of our nation's history which was never in any way Christian. In effect, it is the typical liberal view of Conservative Evangelical Christians. That is, Bible believing conservative Christians are all ignorant, mean spirited, naive, and truth be told, not very Christian. Their motives are good, but they just simply don't understand They need to be taught by someone who understands culture and history (like Hunter for example) a more excellent way.
I am being pretty simplistic here but that is the gist. And, just for the record, I disagree with the accuracy of his description, although in some cases I think he is correct. However, I don't think Chuck Colson, James Dobson, or Nancy Pearcy are mean spirited ignoramuses who don't have a clue about culture. I think they are conservative, and Hunter doesn't seem to like the fact they actually take the Bible seriously on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. He also doesn't like that they believe we shouldn't just sit back, and let the libs ram their philosophy down the throats of the rest of America. In effect, Hunter is calling on CCs (Conservative Christians) to lay down their weapon of truth and begin anew practicing the Great Commandment "thou shalt be Nice!" (In liberal parlance, Thou Shalt do deeds of social justice and shut up!).
My critique here is that I think CCs are right on the issues, and right to be involved in politics, not only as Christians but as Americans. In fact, it is our responsibility to be good citizens of God's kingdom and this earthly one. And in a democracy where we have free speech we have a responsibility to not only vote, but advocate strongly for our position. Anything less than that is un-Christian and cowardly. I also think he has a wrong view of our history as a nation. The common belief that the founders were all Deists, and there was basically nothing Christian about our nation's founding is just nonsense. Some were Deists, but any serious historian will note that the Great Awakening coupled with our Puritan forbears, meant that even though not everyone was Christian the underlying culture operated on Christian foundations. Contrast our Revolution with the French one and you should get the point. Our founders believed religion should be protected and encouraged (by that they meant Christianity and not Islam, in case you were wondering). The French had a completely different mindset that turned into a blood bath. Hunter is just plain wrong in his understanding of American History and he should be ashamed of himself for not knowing his history, as well as for promoting an inaccurate view of history. Of course, he does this not by calling this the wrong view of American history, but by calling it one view or the CC story. I hate to say it, but once again Hunter displays an un-Biblical worldview and a rather post-modern view that all history is is just a bunch of stories told from different perspectives. He seems to assume that all historical perspectives are equally valid and there really isn't a true one, or at least you can't get to the true one. Well, I guess the Gospels are just one view of Jesus right? And since all views of history are equally valid we might as well look at the Gospel of Thomas too right? Hogwash!
The other thing that Hunter doesn't even mention in his book is the fact that for many CCs the issue is not just bringing out nation back to its Christian roots, but also bringing that nation back to the Constitution. You know, that thing that says the federal government has enumerated, limited powers and is not the Almighty? Most CCs I know don't want an establishment of Christianity in America but rather just simply want the government to let us live our simple, modest, Christian lives rather than trying to shove abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else, down our throats. It is respect for the Constitution and the Bible that drives most CCs. But, liberals like Hunter don't understand respect for the Constitution because they don't respect our nation's history. And, just as a side note, most of the libs out there have never volunteered for military service, because they don't really believe in America at least not enough to actually fight for her! The only thing they are willing to fight for is their communist worldview! Bill Ayers would be so proud of you Lefties!!
Hunter then makes some interesting points when he talks about how culture changes. He argues that it is those involved in the elite circles who really change culture. Since the CCs have abandoned high culture to the secularists, they have abandoned their ability to change culture. Therefore they are frustrated and work all the harder at making converts and being political. While I disagree with his characterization of CCs, I do agree that Christians should be more involved in high culture, whether it be the arts, academia, law, or any other arena that we have historically given over to the libs. It seems to me that Colson and the others believe this as well, and they too mourn the Christian abandonment of high culture. In fact, that seems to be the whole point behind their books. They want Christians to be involved in high culture. But, they also recognize that it isn't enough just to be involved in high culture. You need to actually have a Christian worldview to be able to play in the high culture game or you become just like the libs who control those places and institutions. I too mourn the anti-intellectualism of the church. But I refuse to believe that we have to give up the truth to be valid "intellectuals". In fact, I would argue with the likes of Machen and VanTil, that the only consistent way to be an intellectual is to be a serious Christian (and a Reformed one at that, for that is the most consistently Christian view). For Christianity is the only consistent worldview because it alone is a reflection of the God who is Truth.
But, I do get the point that Christians should be more involved in the Elite cultural arenas. We should, in fact, offer positive alternatives, instead of sitting back and criticizing all those in the seats of power. I agree with Hunter on this point at least.
I also found Hunter's discussion of Power to be a bit confusing. Like I said earlier, perhaps the fault here is with me. But, it seems rather fundamental to his argument that Power is at the center of the culture wars. He views CCs as basically trying to impose their view of truth on the rest of the world because they want to have the power. My issue here is that I think Hunter displays some communist presuppositions rather than Christian ones in this area. The communist worldview, that it is always between the haves and the have nots, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. The Biblical world view says it is Truth against lies, faithful followers of God against those who are hostile to God. While power can be abused, the issue in the Bible is about sin in general, not just the abuse of power. In other words, social injustice is not the cardinal sin, rebellion against God is! Hunter seems to agree with the CLs (Christians who are liberal politically) that the Bible is pretty much a book about social justice. In fact, this seems to be his fundamental view of the world. The problem is that this is not Biblical. Social justice is important in the Bible, but the fundamental issue is whether a person will believe and follow Jesus, not whether they are a social liberal or on the side of the poor. Jesus has followers who are rich, poor and in the middle. Our problem in America today is not one of social injustice but that we have a culture that has rejected Christ. CLs basically assume Jesus is the head communist and that to follow him means adopting the liberal political agenda. The problem is that I just don't see Jesus stealing from the rich to give to the poor (via taxes or any other way), or giving people welfare without holding them accountable for their behavior, or equating homosexual rights as part of his social agenda, or abortion rights, or any of the other leftist agenda items. Social justice in the Bible is not something forced upon people by the government, but is a voluntary act of faith done by people who love their neighbors because they love God. This is not the CL viewpoint though. For them, government has replaced Jesus as the Almighty deliverer.
The fundamental problem with Hunter's view here is that he fails to take into account that no matter how you slice it, at some point a Christian has the responsibility to confront his neighbor about his sin. And this, more often than not, is not seen as being nice or being Liberal. The assumption Hunter makes is that I don't have a right to impose my view on anyone else. And, of course, he is right, except for one problem. God does have a right to impose His view and standard on everyone. And, if I really believe I understand His standard I have a responsibility to proclaim His standard to the world, and pray they will repent and believe the Gospel. The call of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel and to live it out. Christianity is about truth first and foremost. You cannot have justice without Truth. Isaiah 59 and Romans 1 come to mind about how cultures deteriorate. Cultures (and individuals) reject Truth and then injustice prevails. Then they blame God for their problems and take it out on those who represent Him. God will either intervene to save His people (either through conversion, as in the case of Jonah's Nineveh, or in destruction, as with Sodom and Gomorrah) or He might just give the culture over to sin.
The other issue here is that Hunter doesn't seem to think there is any place or role for the Law of God in society. Of course, if you remove the Law, you lose the Gospel, but that is just one point. The other is that Hunter has rejected the Reformed view that the Law is useful in society in restraining sin, convicting of sin, and establishing a standard for Christian conduct. In fact, I am not even sure Hunter mentions the Law or sin in his entire book. Maybe I missed it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be a prominent part of his argument. So, if there was one fundamental flaw with Hunter's book is that he has completely mis-diagnosed the problem because he doesn't account for the sinful hearts and minds of those who don't know Christ. The doctrine of Total Depravity comes to mind, but it doesn't seem it did to Hunter when he wrote his book.
Also, Hunter completely discounts any room or place for the reality that God does work through individual Christians, and He does in fact answer prayer. For example, St. Augustine, who certainly was a culture warrior, credits his conversion and success to the prayers of his mother. Oops, there I go again with my Great Man view of history. Hunter doesn't believe history is the story of great men so we can't use any examples of great men anymore. But, my point is that, whether he believes it or not, great men have in fact had massive impacts on the history of the world and changing cultures. He says they worked through networks and that without networks none of these Great Men would have been successful. Well, I have no doubt that they networked. They also used language, wrote books, could read, etc. but that doesn't discount that they were Great Men, and God used them to change the world. Where would we be without Abraham, or Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.? Give me a break man!
My point is that God does work through individuals, God does answer prayer, and God is not dependent on networks or high culture or anything else to change the world. He normally works through means , but He is not obligated to do so. So, to mock those poor Christians out there who are praying for Revival and to discount them as bumbling fools, or at least nice, but seriously misguided, is a bit pompous and unspiritual. At the very least, it is completely uninspiring to the mom with three kids who is crying out to God to save her kids from being persecuted by God hating homosexuals who might want to rape them someday like the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. That mom's simple prayer of faith has more power than Hunter seems to believe. O ye of little faith!
All that being said, I did have a few good take aways from the book. I appreciated his three basic categories of Evangelicals, and how they have attempted to interact with Culture. He makes the case there is the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptist approach. He summarizes their views as "Defense Against, Relevance to, and Purity From". The CCs are trying to defend themselves from secularization by taking over politically. The CLs are trying to make the Church relevant by focusing on social justice and minimizing Truth. The Neo-anabaptists are trying to disengage the corrupt culture by "being the Church". I think there is some truth to his model and found it somewhat helpful , although it is a poor substitute for Neibuhr's views in Christ and Culture. But, I do appreciate the effort Hunter is making. His view, which he tries to paint as the Biblical alternative, is called "Faithful Presence In". I wasn't too clear on exactly what this means, but it seems to mean that Christians should stop trying to be political at all since that is not how you change culture. Instead we should take whatever calling we have in life, and interpret it through the Social Justice lens of Scripture. Then, we can find ways to help the poor, and be considered nice by all the liberals out there who run the culture. Rather than confronting the sins of the culture with truth, we should confront the culture with good deeds. In effect, he is submitting we should become moralists, and show the culture a better way. To me, this is basically a 21st Century recasting of the Social Gospel of the early 1900s. Only for Hunter, Christians shouldn't focus on moral issues like the Social Gospel did, but rather on changing your work space, or you company's business practices, etc. Don't talk about moral issues as long as you help the poor. That is the main thing. And, we really need to do it well and just shut up because that is the only way we will get back any credibility with the Liberal Elites. Once we get on good terms with them at least maybe then they will let us live peacefully in our country and they just might even be nice back to us. Then we can all sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after.
I don't buy it. The book did make me think about how politicized my own mind has become, and it did get me to think more about how to interact with the culture. I also learned a lot about the Christian Left mindset and the Neo-anabaptist viewpoint. But, in the end, I am a conservative because I believe it best reflects a Biblical worldview. Hunter may be an outstanding sociologist and in my humble opinion he should stick to that calling. However, he clearly misses the mark as a historian and theologian and should leave these areas to those who are more qualified to address them. Make me a Biblical argument and you will have a much better shot at "changing my world".
First of all, I must admit, that in general, I found the book quite disappointing and uninspiring. In fact, it seemed to me a bit of a downer. There were, however, some helpful insights that I did appreciate, although from my perspective there are serious flaws with his argument and his conclusion. I want to be clear, though, that it is entirely possible that I misunderstood his intent, because I found the book at times burdensome to try to understand.
Hunter initially describes what he thinks is the main, conservative Evangelical Christian view of how culture changes, and then attempts to discredit such leading advocates as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Nancy Pearcy. Basically, he thinks this view is that the only and primary way to change culture is by changing peoples' hearts and minds so they could have an individual impact on changing the culture. As more and more people come to Christ, and individual Christians begin to think more Christianly, culture will automatically become more Christian. And, of course, the primary thing these Christians are supposed to do when they think more Christianly is vote for right wing conservatives. They will put conservative judges on the bench who will legislate Christian morality to a culture that used to be somewhat Christian, but has since rejected Christianity for secularism. In effect, he views conservative Evangelical Christians as sore losers who refuse to admit that they have lost the culture wars, and should give up fighting for a Christian America, at least on the political front. These Christians are also mean spirited in their tone, have unrealistic expectations on how to change culture, and are basically ignorant of our nation's history which was never in any way Christian. In effect, it is the typical liberal view of Conservative Evangelical Christians. That is, Bible believing conservative Christians are all ignorant, mean spirited, naive, and truth be told, not very Christian. Their motives are good, but they just simply don't understand They need to be taught by someone who understands culture and history (like Hunter for example) a more excellent way.
I am being pretty simplistic here but that is the gist. And, just for the record, I disagree with the accuracy of his description, although in some cases I think he is correct. However, I don't think Chuck Colson, James Dobson, or Nancy Pearcy are mean spirited ignoramuses who don't have a clue about culture. I think they are conservative, and Hunter doesn't seem to like the fact they actually take the Bible seriously on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. He also doesn't like that they believe we shouldn't just sit back, and let the libs ram their philosophy down the throats of the rest of America. In effect, Hunter is calling on CCs (Conservative Christians) to lay down their weapon of truth and begin anew practicing the Great Commandment "thou shalt be Nice!" (In liberal parlance, Thou Shalt do deeds of social justice and shut up!).
My critique here is that I think CCs are right on the issues, and right to be involved in politics, not only as Christians but as Americans. In fact, it is our responsibility to be good citizens of God's kingdom and this earthly one. And in a democracy where we have free speech we have a responsibility to not only vote, but advocate strongly for our position. Anything less than that is un-Christian and cowardly. I also think he has a wrong view of our history as a nation. The common belief that the founders were all Deists, and there was basically nothing Christian about our nation's founding is just nonsense. Some were Deists, but any serious historian will note that the Great Awakening coupled with our Puritan forbears, meant that even though not everyone was Christian the underlying culture operated on Christian foundations. Contrast our Revolution with the French one and you should get the point. Our founders believed religion should be protected and encouraged (by that they meant Christianity and not Islam, in case you were wondering). The French had a completely different mindset that turned into a blood bath. Hunter is just plain wrong in his understanding of American History and he should be ashamed of himself for not knowing his history, as well as for promoting an inaccurate view of history. Of course, he does this not by calling this the wrong view of American history, but by calling it one view or the CC story. I hate to say it, but once again Hunter displays an un-Biblical worldview and a rather post-modern view that all history is is just a bunch of stories told from different perspectives. He seems to assume that all historical perspectives are equally valid and there really isn't a true one, or at least you can't get to the true one. Well, I guess the Gospels are just one view of Jesus right? And since all views of history are equally valid we might as well look at the Gospel of Thomas too right? Hogwash!
The other thing that Hunter doesn't even mention in his book is the fact that for many CCs the issue is not just bringing out nation back to its Christian roots, but also bringing that nation back to the Constitution. You know, that thing that says the federal government has enumerated, limited powers and is not the Almighty? Most CCs I know don't want an establishment of Christianity in America but rather just simply want the government to let us live our simple, modest, Christian lives rather than trying to shove abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else, down our throats. It is respect for the Constitution and the Bible that drives most CCs. But, liberals like Hunter don't understand respect for the Constitution because they don't respect our nation's history. And, just as a side note, most of the libs out there have never volunteered for military service, because they don't really believe in America at least not enough to actually fight for her! The only thing they are willing to fight for is their communist worldview! Bill Ayers would be so proud of you Lefties!!
Hunter then makes some interesting points when he talks about how culture changes. He argues that it is those involved in the elite circles who really change culture. Since the CCs have abandoned high culture to the secularists, they have abandoned their ability to change culture. Therefore they are frustrated and work all the harder at making converts and being political. While I disagree with his characterization of CCs, I do agree that Christians should be more involved in high culture, whether it be the arts, academia, law, or any other arena that we have historically given over to the libs. It seems to me that Colson and the others believe this as well, and they too mourn the Christian abandonment of high culture. In fact, that seems to be the whole point behind their books. They want Christians to be involved in high culture. But, they also recognize that it isn't enough just to be involved in high culture. You need to actually have a Christian worldview to be able to play in the high culture game or you become just like the libs who control those places and institutions. I too mourn the anti-intellectualism of the church. But I refuse to believe that we have to give up the truth to be valid "intellectuals". In fact, I would argue with the likes of Machen and VanTil, that the only consistent way to be an intellectual is to be a serious Christian (and a Reformed one at that, for that is the most consistently Christian view). For Christianity is the only consistent worldview because it alone is a reflection of the God who is Truth.
But, I do get the point that Christians should be more involved in the Elite cultural arenas. We should, in fact, offer positive alternatives, instead of sitting back and criticizing all those in the seats of power. I agree with Hunter on this point at least.
I also found Hunter's discussion of Power to be a bit confusing. Like I said earlier, perhaps the fault here is with me. But, it seems rather fundamental to his argument that Power is at the center of the culture wars. He views CCs as basically trying to impose their view of truth on the rest of the world because they want to have the power. My issue here is that I think Hunter displays some communist presuppositions rather than Christian ones in this area. The communist worldview, that it is always between the haves and the have nots, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. The Biblical world view says it is Truth against lies, faithful followers of God against those who are hostile to God. While power can be abused, the issue in the Bible is about sin in general, not just the abuse of power. In other words, social injustice is not the cardinal sin, rebellion against God is! Hunter seems to agree with the CLs (Christians who are liberal politically) that the Bible is pretty much a book about social justice. In fact, this seems to be his fundamental view of the world. The problem is that this is not Biblical. Social justice is important in the Bible, but the fundamental issue is whether a person will believe and follow Jesus, not whether they are a social liberal or on the side of the poor. Jesus has followers who are rich, poor and in the middle. Our problem in America today is not one of social injustice but that we have a culture that has rejected Christ. CLs basically assume Jesus is the head communist and that to follow him means adopting the liberal political agenda. The problem is that I just don't see Jesus stealing from the rich to give to the poor (via taxes or any other way), or giving people welfare without holding them accountable for their behavior, or equating homosexual rights as part of his social agenda, or abortion rights, or any of the other leftist agenda items. Social justice in the Bible is not something forced upon people by the government, but is a voluntary act of faith done by people who love their neighbors because they love God. This is not the CL viewpoint though. For them, government has replaced Jesus as the Almighty deliverer.
The fundamental problem with Hunter's view here is that he fails to take into account that no matter how you slice it, at some point a Christian has the responsibility to confront his neighbor about his sin. And this, more often than not, is not seen as being nice or being Liberal. The assumption Hunter makes is that I don't have a right to impose my view on anyone else. And, of course, he is right, except for one problem. God does have a right to impose His view and standard on everyone. And, if I really believe I understand His standard I have a responsibility to proclaim His standard to the world, and pray they will repent and believe the Gospel. The call of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel and to live it out. Christianity is about truth first and foremost. You cannot have justice without Truth. Isaiah 59 and Romans 1 come to mind about how cultures deteriorate. Cultures (and individuals) reject Truth and then injustice prevails. Then they blame God for their problems and take it out on those who represent Him. God will either intervene to save His people (either through conversion, as in the case of Jonah's Nineveh, or in destruction, as with Sodom and Gomorrah) or He might just give the culture over to sin.
The other issue here is that Hunter doesn't seem to think there is any place or role for the Law of God in society. Of course, if you remove the Law, you lose the Gospel, but that is just one point. The other is that Hunter has rejected the Reformed view that the Law is useful in society in restraining sin, convicting of sin, and establishing a standard for Christian conduct. In fact, I am not even sure Hunter mentions the Law or sin in his entire book. Maybe I missed it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be a prominent part of his argument. So, if there was one fundamental flaw with Hunter's book is that he has completely mis-diagnosed the problem because he doesn't account for the sinful hearts and minds of those who don't know Christ. The doctrine of Total Depravity comes to mind, but it doesn't seem it did to Hunter when he wrote his book.
Also, Hunter completely discounts any room or place for the reality that God does work through individual Christians, and He does in fact answer prayer. For example, St. Augustine, who certainly was a culture warrior, credits his conversion and success to the prayers of his mother. Oops, there I go again with my Great Man view of history. Hunter doesn't believe history is the story of great men so we can't use any examples of great men anymore. But, my point is that, whether he believes it or not, great men have in fact had massive impacts on the history of the world and changing cultures. He says they worked through networks and that without networks none of these Great Men would have been successful. Well, I have no doubt that they networked. They also used language, wrote books, could read, etc. but that doesn't discount that they were Great Men, and God used them to change the world. Where would we be without Abraham, or Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.? Give me a break man!
My point is that God does work through individuals, God does answer prayer, and God is not dependent on networks or high culture or anything else to change the world. He normally works through means , but He is not obligated to do so. So, to mock those poor Christians out there who are praying for Revival and to discount them as bumbling fools, or at least nice, but seriously misguided, is a bit pompous and unspiritual. At the very least, it is completely uninspiring to the mom with three kids who is crying out to God to save her kids from being persecuted by God hating homosexuals who might want to rape them someday like the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. That mom's simple prayer of faith has more power than Hunter seems to believe. O ye of little faith!
All that being said, I did have a few good take aways from the book. I appreciated his three basic categories of Evangelicals, and how they have attempted to interact with Culture. He makes the case there is the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptist approach. He summarizes their views as "Defense Against, Relevance to, and Purity From". The CCs are trying to defend themselves from secularization by taking over politically. The CLs are trying to make the Church relevant by focusing on social justice and minimizing Truth. The Neo-anabaptists are trying to disengage the corrupt culture by "being the Church". I think there is some truth to his model and found it somewhat helpful , although it is a poor substitute for Neibuhr's views in Christ and Culture. But, I do appreciate the effort Hunter is making. His view, which he tries to paint as the Biblical alternative, is called "Faithful Presence In". I wasn't too clear on exactly what this means, but it seems to mean that Christians should stop trying to be political at all since that is not how you change culture. Instead we should take whatever calling we have in life, and interpret it through the Social Justice lens of Scripture. Then, we can find ways to help the poor, and be considered nice by all the liberals out there who run the culture. Rather than confronting the sins of the culture with truth, we should confront the culture with good deeds. In effect, he is submitting we should become moralists, and show the culture a better way. To me, this is basically a 21st Century recasting of the Social Gospel of the early 1900s. Only for Hunter, Christians shouldn't focus on moral issues like the Social Gospel did, but rather on changing your work space, or you company's business practices, etc. Don't talk about moral issues as long as you help the poor. That is the main thing. And, we really need to do it well and just shut up because that is the only way we will get back any credibility with the Liberal Elites. Once we get on good terms with them at least maybe then they will let us live peacefully in our country and they just might even be nice back to us. Then we can all sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after.
I don't buy it. The book did make me think about how politicized my own mind has become, and it did get me to think more about how to interact with the culture. I also learned a lot about the Christian Left mindset and the Neo-anabaptist viewpoint. But, in the end, I am a conservative because I believe it best reflects a Biblical worldview. Hunter may be an outstanding sociologist and in my humble opinion he should stick to that calling. However, he clearly misses the mark as a historian and theologian and should leave these areas to those who are more qualified to address them. Make me a Biblical argument and you will have a much better shot at "changing my world".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)