Posts
This has been re-posted from Sept 17, 2010
#dmingml To Change the World by James Davison Hunter is the first major text my friends are I are analyzing as part of a Doctor in Ministry on Global Missional Leadership through George Fox University. If you want to follow the dialog you can go to the following link www.dmingml.com. For the past few days I thought I had been interacting with others about their own reflections on Hunter’s work, as well as posting some of my own thoughts, only to discover that these had somewhere been chewed up in cyberspace. Fortunately, you can visit the link above and quickly realize that a very intelligent, inquisitive dialog has been going on without me and indeed appears not to have missed me at all! :) Not to diminish some of the exhaustive work that Hunter has captured in his book, in essence, he is asking the question of how do Christians live our their faith in the culture in which they are engaged? He assumes firstly that Christians want to engage the culture, and in fact, desire to change it, and goes on to critique a number of traditional models to which Christians subscribe to that measure the degree to which they believe Christians should engage the culture, and the nature of that engagement. This is quite a fascinating analysis, and one that is quite provocative. For me, one of the most critical questions that Hunter raises is on p.6, “To understand how to change the world, one must begin with an understanding of what needs to be changed. In short, everything hinges on how we understand the nature of culture.” He proposes that for one major group, namely ‘evangelicals’, that their understanding of culture has more to do with the values/morals that individuals hold dear to themselves and the belief that if they could just convince everyone else how important those values are, then the culture would change to reflect those values and that would result in victory! Consequently, he believes that evangelicals tend to be more focused on the strategy of evangelizing individuals who in turn will evangelize others ultimately leading to a ‘majority rules’ perspective that places them in a position of influence and power to protect and change the culture. Although I believe Hunter doesn’t have a higher enough view of the role of evangelism in bringing about cultural transformation, I tend to cringe at the prospect that all Christians have to do is ‘win’ people over, ‘win’ enough people, and then through the power of that group enforce their values and try to impose them upon others – usually, the political process is chosen as the primary vehicle to achieve this end. There are many examples throughout history where the Church has become implicated in these political processes which has led to non-believers becoming confused, angry and resentful. Sadly, many believers have also become disenfranchised by the Church because of this and left the Church, further weakening the transformational capability of the Church in communities around the world. The irony in this is, that this was not the strategy deployed by Jesus. Although Jesus was intentional about the way he engaged individuals and sought to point them to God, it was clear that he did not seek to ‘win’ them all one by one until he had an army that was capable of enforcing the values he espoused. In fact, he frequently steered away from confronting the powerful political and religious institutions of the day that potentially had the power to reinforce what Jesus preached and lived. It appears to me that Hunter flounders a little at this point. He clearly believes that Christians are incapable of ushering in substantial cultural change unless it has the support of the elites or powerful institutions. While Jesus is a central figure in the world’s history and a ‘game-changer’ and understood the significance of his historical role in God’s wider purposes, Hunter believes that many Christians are naïve (almost arrogant) in seeking to change culture because they assume they understand exactly what God wants to change in the culture, and how he wants to do that through them. While each of us could recall examples that would support his case, equally, there are many examples when cultural transformation has been initiated because of one individual listening to the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, I found Hunter’s treatment of the reality and role of the Holy Spirit lacking. I do however, accept Hunter’s proposition, that it is the responsibility of every believer to practice the faithful presence of Christ. How this plays out for individuals and institutions is still to be explored.
#dmingml To Change the World by James Davison Hunter is the first major text my friends are I are analyzing as part of a Doctor in Ministry on Global Missional Leadership through George Fox University. If you want to follow the dialog you can go to the following link www.dmingml.com. For the past few days I thought I had been interacting with others about their own reflections on Hunter’s work, as well as posting some of my own thoughts, only to discover that these had somewhere been chewed up in cyberspace. Fortunately, you can visit the link above and quickly realize that a very intelligent, inquisitive dialog has been going on without me and indeed appears not to have missed me at all! :) Not to diminish some of the exhaustive work that Hunter has captured in his book, in essence, he is asking the question of how do Christians live our their faith in the culture in which they are engaged? He assumes firstly that Christians want to engage the culture, and in fact, desire to change it, and goes on to critique a number of traditional models to which Christians subscribe to that measure the degree to which they believe Christians should engage the culture, and the nature of that engagement. This is quite a fascinating analysis, and one that is quite provocative. For me, one of the most critical questions that Hunter raises is on p.6, “To understand how to change the world, one must begin with an understanding of what needs to be changed. In short, everything hinges on how we understand the nature of culture.” He proposes that for one major group, namely ‘evangelicals’, that their understanding of culture has more to do with the values/morals that individuals hold dear to themselves and the belief that if they could just convince everyone else how important those values are, then the culture would change to reflect those values and that would result in victory! Consequently, he believes that evangelicals tend to be more focused on the strategy of evangelizing individuals who in turn will evangelize others ultimately leading to a ‘majority rules’ perspective that places them in a position of influence and power to protect and change the culture. Although I believe Hunter doesn’t have a higher enough view of the role of evangelism in bringing about cultural transformation, I tend to cringe at the prospect that all Christians have to do is ‘win’ people over, ‘win’ enough people, and then through the power of that group enforce their values and try to impose them upon others – usually, the political process is chosen as the primary vehicle to achieve this end. There are many examples throughout history where the Church has become implicated in these political processes which has led to non-believers becoming confused, angry and resentful. Sadly, many believers have also become disenfranchised by the Church because of this and left the Church, further weakening the transformational capability of the Church in communities around the world. The irony in this is, that this was not the strategy deployed by Jesus. Although Jesus was intentional about the way he engaged individuals and sought to point them to God, it was clear that he did not seek to ‘win’ them all one by one until he had an army that was capable of enforcing the values he espoused. In fact, he frequently steered away from confronting the powerful political and religious institutions of the day that potentially had the power to reinforce what Jesus preached and lived. It appears to me that Hunter flounders a little at this point. He clearly believes that Christians are incapable of ushering in substantial cultural change unless it has the support of the elites or powerful institutions. While Jesus is a central figure in the world’s history and a ‘game-changer’ and understood the significance of his historical role in God’s wider purposes, Hunter believes that many Christians are naïve (almost arrogant) in seeking to change culture because they assume they understand exactly what God wants to change in the culture, and how he wants to do that through them. While each of us could recall examples that would support his case, equally, there are many examples when cultural transformation has been initiated because of one individual listening to the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, I found Hunter’s treatment of the reality and role of the Holy Spirit lacking. I do however, accept Hunter’s proposition, that it is the responsibility of every believer to practice the faithful presence of Christ. How this plays out for individuals and institutions is still to be explored.
No comments:
Post a Comment