In 2010, sociologist James Davison Hunter, who’s perhaps noted for popularizing the term “culture wars,” published a book titled To Change the World: The Ironies, Tragedies, and Possibilities of Christianity in the Early Modern World. This work ignited discussions, particularly among Christians, on the most effective ways to tackle cultural change.
Hunter took aim at cultural strategies that overlooked significant “authoritative centers of cultural production” like film, media, and the arts. He believed that elites influence culture from a higher level. While he had reservations about a politicized approach, he recognized that some form of power wielding was essential. He suggested a method he called “faithful presence,” encouraging Christians to act as devoted witnesses in their various circles, rather than retreating from or trying to reclaim culture.
Now, 16 years after its release, a more comprehensive evaluation of Hunter’s ideas is possible. One notable observation is that “outsiders” tend to have a greater impact on cultural shifts than Hunter’s framework may suggest. Cultural critic Aaron Wren argues that although elites can formalize change, it often arises from the edges. Early Christianity, after all, started on the periphery; the apostles weren’t high-status figures of their time. The growth of faith in its early days indicates a notable potential for influence stemming from the margins of society.
This resonates with recent social changes. Social media has fundamentally shaken traditional media hierarchies. Influencers frequently hold more sway than academics now. The rise of “outsider” politicians, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, illustrates this shift as well. While elite influence remains relevant, it doesn’t fully encompass the narrative of cultural transformation.
Additionally, the number of dominant elites is diminishing. For instance, the Ivy League isn’t viewed with the same awe as before. Although these institutions still hold substantial cultural sway, there’s growing skepticism about the value of a college education marked by critical theory and progressive ideologies. This change has largely been fueled by social media networks initiated by Ivy League dropouts.
Hunter also underestimated the role and purpose of politics. While politics differs from the City of God, it nonetheless exists within God’s design. Though often influenced by broader cultural currents, the political landscape has become increasingly connected to cultural matters. Philosopher Aristotle and American founder Charles R. Kessler noted that the concept of revolution implies that politics can, indeed, shape culture. In the United States, celebrating its 250th anniversary this year, the Founding Fathers’ political actions exemplify this, transitioning from a British identity to an American one.
Politics isn’t the sole avenue for cultural change, but it remains significant. The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs, which overturned federal abortion protections and transferred the matter back to the states, highlights a major pro-life win achieved primarily through ongoing political engagement. Here, Christian political approaches have the capacity to influence American culture.
Finally, some critics who challenged Hunter’s idea of “faithful presence” at the time mentioned that such a vague concept could downplay the Christian obligation to uphold truth in the public discourse. While the value of being reliable shouldn’t be dismissed, mere “presence” may lead to reticence against rising injustices and suffering. Many proponents of a “faithful presence,” like those advising Jack Phillips to “bake a cake” for tolerance, overlooked a more profound understanding of fidelity.
Chuck Colson emphasized that Christians should approach all life facets—home, education, business, politics—from a Christian perspective. He referenced figures like Francis Schaeffer and William Wilberforce, whose faith inspired cultural and political transformation. Colson asserted, “It’s tough to find a historical example where silence and a commitment to fighting injustice coexisted,” marking his life as a model for us today.
Osguinness summed it up well by suggesting that it nudges us towards more effective cultural engagement. He stated, “Our Lord Himself was not just present, but active,” emphasizing our call to emulate Christ by being proactive in the world, advocating for our faith while engaging with culture through a distinctly Christian viewpoint.
