Clarifying the ‘Culture’ Debate
Culture is unquestionably a buzzword of the contemporary era. Evangelicals seek to “engage the culture” for Christ, while PBS journalists aim to capture the cultural moment in documentaries. Even politicians speak of cultural developments and trends in public speeches [1]. However, when using the term ‘culture’, do these parties mean the same thing?
Whether it is T.S. Eliot’s classic Notes Toward the Definition of Culture, Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, or more recently Andy Crouch’s Culture Making, it seems nearly impossible to identify a common definition of ‘culture’ among writers (even among these three who are writing within a 75-year period of one another).
Several prominent views of ‘culture’ have emerged [2]. Given the various conceptions of the term it is not surprising that many people advance different approaches to cultural engagement. As a result, because the contours of ‘culture’ are so ambiguous, it is analyzed poorly. And since it is analyzed poorly, who can engage it or change it successfully? It is this sentiment that compelled James Davison Hunter to write To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World [3].
This recent book is divided into three essays. In Essay I, “Christianity and World-Changing,” the main content of Dr. Hunter’s critique is this: Christians have failed to change culture because they misunderstand two key things: 1) The actual nature of culture and 2) how cultural change occurs.
While this book is not an exploration in social theory, Hunter contends that evangelicals should consider several key propositions when they think about culture. First, culture is a system of truth claims and moral obligations. Thus, it entails “shoulds” and “should nots,” and even raises questions concerning one’s worldview. While it might not always be articulated clearly, in every culture there is a normative order of how things ought to be.
Second, culture is a product of history. It takes place in the “slow accretions of meaning in society over long periods of time” [4]. No single individual or group can forge a culture overnight. It is a gradual process and, as a result, is often difficult to understand. Culture isn’t simply a lone pond in a patch of woods. Rather, it is a flowing stream with many tributaries.
Finally, Hunter argues that culture is not merely a collection of ideas. Rather, the notion of culture is quite complex and nuanced. New ideas shape institutions, either at their founding or in their development, and simultaneously institutions circulate these ideas. In other words, there is a symbiotic relationship between an idea and an institution – not simply cause and effect. Culture is not an autonomous force disconnected from networks of power and meaning. In summary, what many people don’t realize is that culture is far more complex than they would like to believe. What happens in the world around us has been shaped by forces over time, visible and invisible, and takes great discernment to evaluate.
Hunter proceeds to make some observations about the nature of cultural change as well. The main point in this essay is that change is typically initiated by the elites outside of the center of the mainstream, as opposed to grassroots movements. While some bristle at this, it has proven true historically. Though mere individuals can make a difference, they typically don’t produce permanent change apart from social institutions mediating the process.
The main reason for this is that changing culture takes time (even generations). There must be a set of institutions that has some staying power to penetrate the consciousness of society at large. Examples include Hollywood, Wall Street, publishing houses, and universities. These forces coalesce to forge a culture through social processes.
Perhaps the most troubling fact about Christian public life and efforts at change is that believers often adhere to errant views of how social change actually occurs. In his second essay, “Rethinking Power,” Hunter evaluates three groups: the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists. Each group, particularly the first two, resort to the same power plays of their secular counterparts in the world to enact their own agenda. Unfortunately, this approach often results in unintended consequences.
For example, one problem is that “the impulse toward politicization extends to the politicization of values. This means that the autonomy of moral criteria on which a higher practice of politics depends is ultimately lost” [5]. Ideals such as fairness, justice, and liberty thus become fuzzy notions outside of the realm of politics. Virtues no longer have a clear source when they are usurped by various political parties. Any relevant connection that such values have to Christianity is obliterated as they are redefined and exploited. As a result, the Church is reduced to a special-interest group instead of a counter-cultural community.
Overall, Hunter substantiates his argument with biblical reflection, historical case studies, and social theory. In my estimation, his account is timely and accurate. Ultimately, however, what sort of practical theology should Christians embrace in cultural life?
Hunter proposes a “theology of faithful presence” in Essay III. He asserts that the posture needed is one where Christians are faithfully present in the structures of culture. This occurs as disciples are formed through God’s Word and are part of the Church – the true counter-culture. Christians should exchange their notions of conquest and dominance for the embodiment of the Gospel-centered worldview in all realms of society. Hunter is not saying that Christians should strive for elitism, but contends that they ought to engage in the periphery, the center, and everywhere in between with excellence.
Hunter’s provocative proposal entails some trenchant criticism of the current “Christian” approach to cultural engagement:
The best understanding of the creation mandate is not about changing the world at all. It is certainly not about ‘saving Western civilization,’ ‘saving America,’ ‘winning the culture war,’ or anything else like it…A theology of faithful presence means a recognition that the vocation of the church is to bear witness to and to be the embodiment of the coming Kingdom of God [6].
According to Hunter, the Church’s involvement in the world lacks “robust and constructive affirmations,” such as intellectual mastery and artistic expression. Instead, their engagement consists mostly of negations of everything in the world. In other words, when we’re preoccupied with condemning the decadent things of culture, no time remains to affirm the goodness found in creation. He asks, “[I]s the Kingdom of God to be known predominantly by its negations?” [7] Hunter rightly prods at the nagging obsession with political power that Christians have tended to clutch, while neglecting obvious implications of the creation mandate in the arts, sciences, agriculture, and leisure.
Perhaps the most provocative point Hunter makes is not in his conclusion, but in his theological reflection on the use of power. Once he establishes that power is involved in all human relations, he then points to Christ as an exemplar of the proper perspective on the principalities and ‘powers’.
To Change the World is a brilliant and refreshing work that should be taken seriously. For those desiring to be in the world, but not of the world, it is a timely reminder and guide.
_______________________________________
[1] Typically they mean ‘multi-culturalism’.
[2] I think all perspectives boil down into four categories: The “culture as sphere” model, in which culture is seen as the realm in which social activity occurs – the notion of civilization or society, for example. Others adopt a “culture as zeitgeist” model, in which culture is seen as a mood, or prevailing attitude among the populace. Others advance a “culture as artifacts” view, where culture is seen simply as the tools, objects, and products created by man. Finally, the “culture as tribe” view sees culture purely in ethnic and anthropological terms.
[3] Oxford University Press, 2010. James Davison Hunter is the Labrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1983. He is also Director of the Institute for Advanced studies in Culture, and has authored numerous works, including Culture Wars and The Death of Character.
[4] Hunter, 33.
[5] Hunter, 172.
[6] Hunter, 95.
[7] Hunter, 174-175.
Recent Comments