• Do I agree with what the author says?
• Should his ideas be applied?

and if so,

• How can they be applied in the context of the churches of Christ?

The book is broken into three essays: “Christianity and World-Changing,” “Rethinking Power,” and “Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence.” Each essay has about six or seven chapters and I will likely devote two or three posts to each essay depending on the complexity of the material.

Now with all of that said, let’s jump right in.

Chapter One ~ Christian Faith and the Task of World Changing

In this brief introductory chapter Hunter identifies a divine mandate from Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (NRSV) and suggests that this mandate was renewed in God’s covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and culminates in the person of Christ. From this Hunter infers that God has always expected human beings to be about the task of making a better world through our relationships, labor, art, and every other activity which consumes our time. In Hunter’s view, changing the world for the better is not an option for the believer but one of the commitments that we make when we become Christians.

Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with Hunter’s theology on this point, he demonstrates that throughout history, most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, evangelical or mainline, have shared this view. He offers a long list of denominational, para-church organization, and Christian college mission statements that include “changing” or “impacting” the world as part and parcel of their function. Historically, these efforts have yielded a diverse set of outcomes. Remarkable works of mercy and charity, the life-saving efforts of medical missionaries, dramatic social reforms, and the redeemed lives of millions are sadly balanced by institutional corruption, appalling abuses of power, rank hypocrisy, and lusting for political gain.

Despite these failings, almost all Christian organizations, churches and otherwise, perceive a responsibility to impact their communities, countries, and their world. Hunter writes:

“…the idealism about fulfilling the mandate of creation is sincere, the efforts are earnest, and the intentions are undoubtedly honorable. But is that enough?”

Obviously, Hunter would say no; hence the book. Hunter believes that our failure to generate meaningful change in the present is rooted in a flawed perception of culture and mistaken concepts of how culture changes.

Chapter Two ~ Culture: The Common View

In this chapter Hunter assesses what he believes to be the most commonly held view of how culture is created and changed – a view which stresses the role of the individual, or more to the point, the values of the individual. Individuals with corrupted values generate a corrupted culture; likewise, where one finds a majority with healthy values one finds a healthy culture. If one wishes to change the culture, one must begin by changing the values of the individuals who make the culture. Hunter identifies three common tactics for accomplishing this end: evangelism, political action, and social reform.

Evangelism is a divine mandate which almost no Christian group disputes. However, the advocates of this tactic as a means of cultural change (which include Billy Graham, Bill Bright, and James Boice) believe that if enough Christians make soul-winning the highest priority of their spiritual lives, then cultural change will be an inevitable result.  The faith spreads exponentially, values are reformed on a large scale, and culture is changed.

I find this approach both appealing and disturbing. The appeal lies in its simplicity and that it re-directs us back to the Great Commission, which the contemporary church often seems confused and ambivalent about in the best of times. What I find disturbing on the other hand is the question of motive – it appears to me that evangelism done with the intent of generating cultural change places those whom we evangelize in the role of being a means to an end. My understanding of the Gospel and the Great Commission is that we are to bring souls to Christ that they might be saved; not so that we can transform the culture. It seems to me that Biblical evangelism has no covert cultural agenda but rather an overt spiritual agenda, and nothing more.

Hunter rightly observes that political action has been the tactic of choice for the majority of Christians of all theological and political stripes in the US since the 1980s. Simply stated, those who favor this approach (which include Bill Donahue, James Dobson, Mike Huckabee, and at the other end of the political spectrum Jim Wallis) believe that change is achieved through a top down model. Bad law creates a bad culture, good law creates good culture. In this view the appropriate actions for Christians include lobbying, campaigning and voting for certain candidates, and advocacy in the halls of power for laws which reflect spiritual values. Of course, many leaders have warned against this course of action as well. As regular readers of this blog well know, I fall squarely on the side of the naysayers with this one. As I have said repeatedly and will continue to say – there is no mandate in the New Testament to establish the kingdom by legal fiat. Jesus never lobbied Rome and the apostles never formed a PAC. What’s more, history shows that when the church dances with the ruling powers, the ruling powers almost always end up taking the lead. Believers become nothing more than useful idiots.

Finally, there is social reform. Advocates of this tactic believe that voluntary private organizations can initiate reform movements through partnering with churches and other community/civic organizations. These movements tend to establish chapters in various communities and focus their efforts on marshaling volunteers for community action; strengthening families, mentoring children, volunteering at schools, encouraging personal responsibility, etc. Their work with children focuses on building character, developing skills, and providing strong adult role models. The social worker in me loves this approach, and it certainly has historical precedent: Martin Luther, William Wilberforce, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are just three individuals who managed to make significant and lasting impact without the power of the state behind them.

Hunter concludes the chapter by saying that the belief that any of the above mentioned tactics, or even a mix of tactics, can generate sweeping and lasting cultural change is “almost wholly mistaken.” He elaborates on this conclusion in the chapters that follow; so I will stop here for now. I want to throw out some questions for your consideration and to prompt a conversation.

1. Do you agree with Hunter’s assertion that believers have a divine mandate to change our culture? Why or why not?
2. Which of the three tactics discussed above (evangelism, political action, social reform) do you find most appealing? Which do you think is least effective or appropriate? Why?
3. Can you share any personal experiences of being involved with a group of believers who generated change in their communities or on a larger scale?

When I started blogging in 2007 I was working nights to get through grad school.  A large part of my job was being there in case anything happened. If nothing happened (which was the case way more often than not) then my primary responsibility was to stay awake. How I did it was up to me. My school work and Netflix subscription were not enough to fill my shifts, so I took to blogging. I had ample time to research, think, and carefully craft my blog. However, I finished school in May of last year and got a new job two months later that I anticipated would be fairly demanding. Being somewhat vain about my writing and expecting to not have the time that I wanted to put into it, I decided to retire the blog and gleefully announced my intention of doing so in July.

It turns out that I was right about the new job. In fact, it went beyond demanding into the realm of the vicious. The only way I could have handled everything that was thrown at me was to be in two places at once. I never knew when I was going to get to go home and I had energy for nothing beyond work. What’s more, I did very little truly therapeutic work; most of it was putting out fires (figuratively speaking, of course) and cleaning up messes caused by my more personality-disordered clients. In March I learned of an opportunity in the same agency, different division, where not only the hours were more consistent but the focus was on therapy and intensive treatment rather than case management. I put my hat in the ring and managed to score the job. I am now a therapist at a residential facility for people dually-diagnosed with chronic mental illness and substance addiction. It is a far better fit, I am getting the supervision I need for licensure, and my commute never takes more than 30 minutes (it used to be over an hour).

The new job has a weird schedule (no nights though) which leaves some “me time” during the work week. I could think of a lot to do with this time, but I found that I missed blogging. What’s more, to my surprise, more than a few people told me that they missed my blog. Never one to let an ego-stroke go unappreciated, I began to consider getting back into the blogosphere.

But what really clinched the decision for me was the publication of James Davison Hunter‘s new book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. I had heard of Hunter before but had not read much of his work. I now realize that I was missing out on reading a sympathetic, contemporary authority on an issue that is of the utmost interest to me: the interaction of Christianity and contemporary American society. I learned about the book when Christianity Today online published an interview with Hunter. I remember thinking, “Wow, this guy makes a lot of sense.” In fact, I was so impressed by what he had to say that I put the following quote on Facebook as my status:

“When Christians turn to law, public policy, and politics as the last resort, they have essentially given up on a desire to persuade their opponents. They want the patronage of the state and its coercive power to rule the day…Whenever Christian churches and organizations partake in the will to power, they partake in …the very thing they decry in society.”

Someone who knows what he is talking about agrees with me!

So to get this baby up and running, I am going to blog through To Change the World. I am aware that Jay Guin is writing a series on this book as well. Although I read Jay’s blog on a regular basis I have deliberately not read this series so as not inadvertently plagiarise him. I will probably read his whole series when I am ready to summarize mine.

I have no delusions of influence. I am not a preacher, elder, deacon, or even widely read blogger. I don’t expect to change the world myself (pun intended). I’m just a rank-and-file believer who cares deeply about the issues that this book addresses and I want (need?) to talk about this stuff. I hope that you will come along and participate, whether you agree with my conclusions or not. Your feedback always makes this much more fun.

That said; I am still looking forward to it. One of the few things that I miss about full-time ministry is preaching, even if all that I ever did was fill-in or pinch hit. Any believers who are reading this: I sure would appreciate a prayer for my message sometime before 7:30 PM Wednesday night, Eastern Time. Many thanks.

Yesterday I was offered, and accepted, a new job – same employer (the county community services board), different location, and a raise by three pay grades. The job certainly looks interesting and challenging: I will be the primary therapist and case manager for adults with chronic mental illnesses, providing treatment to them and their families in their homes and in the community. I will be part of a multidisciplinary team consisting of doctors, day support/vocational rehabilitation, and advocates providing services.

To say that I am excited would be an understatement. Of course I am looking forward to the new challenges, new colleagues and clients, the opportunity to pursue clinical licensure, and the raise. But truth be told, I am just as pleased to be free of shift work (especially night shifts) for what I hope is the rest of my life. No more working nights, holidays, or weekends. If one of my clients melts down during off hours, emergency services rolls out, and I deal with it on the next business day. If you don’t understand why this is a big deal for me, consider: for the past 9 years I have worked (internships excepted) exclusively in residential services with a variety of populations, and their problems and needs don’t magically dissipate into the ether at 5:00 pm. Even when I was a supervisor, I had to worry about maintaining adequate coverage to insure my clients’ safety. And while I miss some of my past clients and some aspects of past jobs (even as I will miss some aspects of my current job) I know that I will not, for one moment, miss shift work.

Announcement Two

With a fairly new marriage to a woman whose company I enjoy, a new job that requires actual work (at least 50% of which will be done out of the office), a hoped-for increase in church involvement, and a deep burning desire to see my friends and family again, I think that I am going to have to retire the old blog. My enthusiasm for it has waned as I have mostly vented myself of everything that I wished to vent, and I see no point in posting just to post. I also see no point in keeping a blog to which I won’t be posting on at least a semi-regular basis. I am more than aware of the ubiquitous “Sorry I haven’t posted in a while but I have been so busy!” posts. I am also aware that there are bloggers who are far busier than I who still manage to post consistently good material at a regular pace. I don’t know how they do it, but I know that I can’t. I also don’t place such value on my opinion on every single issue that I feel compelled to share it. Some thoughts can and should remain unposted. I don’t want to end up like this guy. Finally, I see no need to apologize for my erratic posting – I cannot imagine that there is anyone whose life is poorer for being denied my mental bi-products. If there is, then they have my pity.

I am not going quietly into the electronic ether, however. I have decided to close shop with a series of posts on some more controversial topics that I have avoided until now for two reasons: [1] I don’t like pissing contests and [2] absolutely nothing gets resolved in blog debates. I enjoy a good, juicy debate but for every thoughtful, reasonable commenter there are two or three blathering poster children for birth control whose bumper sticker philosophy and canned, clichéd responses to every point stink up the internet and derail any useful discussion. They are truly warts on the rear of humanity and I had no interest in dealing with them. But, at this point I see no reason to not go out with a bang, so that’s the game plan. The series will be called Those Other Things. At this point, I don’t know how many entries there will be but I hope that those who are still reading will stick around for the finish.

Only those who have changed the toddler’s diapers know if “Pop,” which is not the child’s real name, is male or female. “We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mold from the outset,” the tot’s 24-year-old mother told the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

Pop’s wardrobe includes both pants and dresses, and the child usually gets to decide what to wear. “Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop’s parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child — they just say Pop,”

 It gets better:

Yet, Kristina Henkel, Swedish gender equality consultant, says Pop’s parents’ experiment could help the child develop as an individual without being boxed in by gender-role stereotyping from birth. “If the child is dressed up as a girl or boy, it affects them because people see and treat them in a more gender-typical way,” Henkel explains. “Girls are told they are cute in their dresses, and boys are told they are cool with their car toys. But if you give them no gender they will be seen more as a human or not a stereotype as a boy or girl.”

Pop’s parents say that they will reveal the child’s gender when Pop thinks it is time to do so. In any case, he or she will soon have more company. The family is expecting another child, and with the next bundle of joy, the parents plan to continue playing the “what’s it to you?” gender card.

First thing: what is a “gender equality consultant”? Second thing: the gender equality consultant suggests that a child with no gender will be seen more as a human. How does that work, exactly? Denying gender is denying a part of what makes us human. As much as some theorists might want us to think otherwise, gender is part and parcel of the human experience. It is a biological construct, not a social one.

“Pop” is also being denied the development of his/her/it’s own persona. Since the parents have opted to turn their child into a social statement rather than raise him/her/it as a whole human being, they are undermining the child’s dignity and laying the foundation for some serious neuroses in the future. Children are not property, product, works of art, or a means of expressing our own individuality or ideology.

And I submit to you: how important is this to anyone’s faith, or lack thereof?

So why am I even writing about it? Because people evidently think that this constitutes news. What’s more, some atheists are chortling over this as though it lends further credence to their meme (which apparently some of them really need to hold on to) that Obama is a closet atheist. If you don’t believe me, check out the Obama tag over at Friendly Atheist. I defy you to find at least one comment thread where some idiot doesn’t suggest that Obama pandered to all the slope-browed, mouth-breathing believers in order to be elected.  (FA is also the same site which gleefully informs us that a member of ABBA is an outspoken atheist. I guess if a member of a mediocre 70s vocal band doesn’t believe in God, well, the faith is sunk).

Until proven otherwise, I will maintain my default position that the god of all politicians, regardless of party allegiance, is power. Their only sacrament is approval ratings and their only holy day is the first one of their next term. I don’t need a pastor-in-chief to believe, and you don’t either.

The Hangover  Absolutely appalling, but funny as all get-out. Caught this one on a guy’s night while my wife and some of her girlfriends went to see The Proposal. I think the guys got the better portion.

UP  As far as I am concerned, a new classic. Not a false note in this deeply moving, riveting, laugh-out-loud, heartfelt adventure, and I feel no shame in admitting that I choked up a couple of times. How does Pixar make movies with animated characters that seem so real while Michael Bay makes movies with flesh and blood actors who come off like cartoons?

Seen anything good? Seen anything that made you want to sue to get the time back that you spent on it? Sound off in the comments.

Next up, a study on why people don’t like paying taxes.

From the article:

In its February 2006 decision, the arbitration panel said Kinkade and other company officials used terms like “partner,” “trust,” “Christian” and “God” to create “a certain religious environment designed to instill a special relationship of trust” with the couple.

What the company didn’t tell them, said their attorney, was that they would have to sell Kinkade’s works at minimum retail prices while the artist undercut them with discount sales, some of which he made himself on cable television.

It was part of a plan, they claimed, to lower the value of the publicly traded company before Kinkade bought it in 2004, at steep losses to many investors. Hazlewood and Spinello put their $122,000 savings into galleries in Charlottesville and Fredericksburg, Va., that opened in 1999 and 2000 and closed in 2003.

Sigh. Regardless of what one may think of Kinkade’s paintings, this is yet another strike against the credibility of believers. Most odious to me is his use of their shared faith to dupe the investors into supporting him.

Perhaps Kinkade rationalized this to himself by saying that the outcome was good – “light” was spread and folks were edified, right?

Yet it’s funny how Jesus never endorsed an “ends justifies the means” ethic – not even for spreading the gospel. We would all do well to remember this.