A response to James Davison Hunter’s book To Change the World

In the first essay of his dissertation, Hunter considers different Christian perspectives of the creation mandate (2010, p. 5). The predominant common view holds that culture is rooted in individuals’ hearts and minds in the form of values (Hunter 2010, p. 6). By this account, culture is the sum of the majority populations’ values and behavior (Hunter 2010, p. 6). Together with this is the idea that change comes from courageous individuals with the right values and worldview. As more people adopt certain paradigms, culture is changed (Hunter 2010, p. 15). As a missionary in majority Catholic Portugal, I find Hunter’s alternative view more compelling. This view sees cultural change as generated, not by the truthfulness of ideas, but by their rootedness in powerful institutions, networks, and symbols (2010, p. 44). Portugal has a collectivist culture with a high aversion to change (Jackson 2020, p. 285). Hunter claims that individual hearts and minds don’t dictate culture as much as culture influences the lives of individuals (2010, p. 45). I come from a highly individualist US-American culture (Jackson 2020, p. 226). Hunter’s alternative view inspires me to identify Portuguese institutions, networks, and symbols where greater transformational leverage exists. 

The dissertation argues that culture changes through patrons sponsoring intellectuals who propagate alternatives (2010, p. 77). These elites are usually accompanied by artists, poets, and other creative communicators that “symbolize, narrate, and popularize” new cultural visions (Hunter 2010, p. 78). My ministry focus is Christian ecumenism and reconciliation, for which ends Hunter’s work inspires me to identify networks of influence. In contrast, Hunter describes the lack of Christian influence and absence from key areas of society caused by coercive approaches to changing culture (2010, p. 95). What is recommended is a theology of faithful presence by which the church bears witness to and embodies the coming Kingdom of God (Hunter 2010, p. 95). This requires the church’s faithful presence in all areas of life, including networks of patrons and elites (Hunter 2010, p. 96). 

The second essay argues that the most determining factor regarding engaging the world is the approach to power, as evidenced in the Christian Right, Christian Left, and Neo-Anabaptists (2010, p. 99). I recognize these Christian approaches in Portugal, and agree with the assessment that the worst solution to the church’s loss of influence is to try and regain power as the world does (2010, p. 100). Similar to the US-American Christian Right Hunter describes, some Portuguese Catholics’ vision of human flourishing is “framed by the particularities of their distinct worldview” (Hunter 2010, p. 111). I also know Portuguese Catholics who, similar to Hunter’s Christian Left, see history as “an ongoing struggle” to realize a myth of equality and community. These liberal Catholics are generally optimistic about their church’s move towards progressive values. While many such liberals do not follow the teachings of the church they want the church to be a moral anchor in Portuguese society. There are also Catholics here who represent the Anabaptist message of “anger, disparagement, and negation” (Hunter 2010, p. 165). These Catholics believe that the church should be a community of contrast that challenges the ways of the world. They do not seek to change the world by engaging the spheres of society, but by being a worshipping community, observing the sacraments, and forming disciples (Hunter 2010, p. 161). Many Portuguese Catholics also fit Hunter’s description of those who frame discussions of power in political terms, thus removing the discussion from everyday life (Hunter 2010, p. 193). I acknowledge this as means of avoiding the challenges of daily life by focusing attention upon inaccessible elites and institutions (2010, p. 193). 

In the third essay, Hunter argues that the Christian call to faithfulness is timeless but must be worked out in the cultural context of particular times and places (2010, p. 197). The author cites difference and dissolution as two problems related to Christian faithfulness, the first relating to how we engage a world that is different from us, the second relating to the deconstruction of basic assumptions about reality (2010, p. 200, 205). Whereas Portuguese Catholics seem to have engaged well with the problem of difference, dissolution is definitely a daunting challenge. Catholics here face the modern world’s negation that human discourse can be connected to the reality of the world in a trustworthy manner (Hunter 2010, p. 205). The Catholic church can no longer rely on its status as a universal authority in a secular Europe where no authority can vouch for the meaning of words and truth (Hunter 2010, p. 206). As an Evangelical, I see this dynamic as a means of identification and solidarity with my Catholic brothers. So for the work of Christian ecumenism, dissolution can be an opportunity for dialogue and prayer.  

I agree with Hunter’s assessment that neither the defensive against, relevant to, or pure from paradigms of engagementare adequate for pursuing faithfulness in the world (2010, p. 223-224). I find the concept of relating to the world through a “dialectic of affirmation and antithesis” (Hunter 2010, p. 214) helpful in Portugal. We can simultaneously partner with God’s common grace in making culture while recognizing that this work is not salvific (Hunter 2010, p. 215, 216). 

Lastly, I’m inspired by Hunter’s calling all Christians to leadership in the paradoxical model of Christ through faithful presence (2010, p. 240). A vision of faithful presence as a covenantal commitment to the flourishing of the world around us (Hunter 2010, 242) exists in Portuguese Catholicism. Within the Catholic Church I find institutions that foster flourishing for all, not just persuading non-Christians to convert to go to heaven (Hunter 2010, 244). Hunter claims that the plausibility and persuasiveness of the Christian faith depends on a culture where “meaning, purpose, beauty, belonging, and faith” are plausible (2010, p. 244). I’m persuaded by this dissertation that establishing justice and righteousness are secondary to the primary good of God Himself – his worship and honor. But I’m also convinced that God has broken the sovereignty of the world’s institutions. And therefore in agreement with Hunter’s thesis, my Portuguese Catholic brothers and sisters and I should seek the betterment of this world and its institutions (Hunter 2010, p. 264). 

Hunter, James Davison (2010). To Change the World. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Jackson, Jane (2020). Introducing Language and Intercultural Communication. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.