Author: John Stonestreet and Andrew Carico
In 2010, sociologist James Davison Hunter—perhaps best known for coining the phrase “culture wars”—published To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. The book sparked a debate, especially among Christians, over how best to approach cultural change.
Hunter criticized strategies for cultural change that ignore “high-prestige centers of cultural production,” such as film, media, and the arts. In his view, elites shape culture from the top down. Though suspicious of politicized approaches, Hunter acknowledged that power had to be wielded by someone. He therefore advocated for a strategy he called “faithful presence.” Rather than seeking to reclaim culture or withdraw from it, Christians should serve as faithful witnesses within their spheres of influence.
Now, 16 years since its publication, a fuller assessment of Hunter’s thesis is possible. First, cultural “outsiders” play a much more significant role in driving cultural change than Hunter’s thesis allows. As writer and cultural commentator Aaron Renn has argued, while elites often institutionalize shifts in the culture, change often originates from the margins. Christianity began on the margins. The apostles were not the elites of their day. Though figures like Paul and Constantine were elite converts, the faith’s early growth demonstrates the potential for cultural impact from the margins of society.
This is not unlike the social change that has occurred in the years since Hunter’s book. Social media has disrupted elite media institutions. Influencers shape narratives more often than academics. “Outsider” politicians, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, have dominated political power. While elites remain important, they don’t tell the entire story of cultural change.
Alternatively, there’s been a precipitous decline of elite powerbrokers. As just one example, the Ivy League is not what it used to be. Though they still wield significant cultural clout, more people today question if a college education wrapped in Critical Theory and progressive political ideology is worth the expense. This comes in the wake of culture-shaping social media networks launching from dorm rooms by Ivy League dropouts.
Hunter’s thesis also underestimated the nature and purpose of politics. Though distinct from the city of God, politics is an institution of God’s created order. Though often downstream from the wider culture, in the year’s since To Change the World was published, the wider culture became far more political. Following the philosopher Aristotle and the example of the American Founders, Charles R. Kesler noted
. . . the very notion of revolution, not to mention founding, implies that politics can change culture… It is one of politics’ jobs to shape, nurture, and defend a culture that encourages good motives or virtues.
America—whose 250th anniversary we celebrate this year—illustrates this point vividly. The Founding Fathers deliberately chose, through political action, to cease being Englishmen and become Americans. As Kesler also wrote,
Becoming American was initially a political and constitutional choice, but finally it necessitated a series of profound transformations in business, speech, dress, literature, religion, education, heroes, holidays, civic ceremonies—in character.
Though politics is not the only means of cultural change, it is a crucial one. The 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs decision, which overturned federal abortion protections and returned the issue to the states, is an example of a major (if partial) pro-life victory achieved through sustained political engagement. In other words, Christian efforts in politics can shape American culture.
Finally, as those who critiqued Hunter’s notion of “faithful presence” at the time pointed out, such undefined notions downplay the responsibility Christians have to defend truth in the marketplace of ideas. While one should not deny the importance of faithfulness, mere “presence” encourages silence in the face of growing injustice and suffering. The many people who told Jack Phillips that he should just “bake the cake” out of love and kindness were advocating for a kind of “faithful presence.” I’m glad Jack had a better, far more robust understanding of faithfulness.
Chuck Colson insisted Christians engage every sphere of life: home, school, business, arts, politics, and education through a Christian worldview. Drawing from Francis Schaeffer, Abraham Kuyper and William Wilberforce, men whose faith drove sweeping cultural and political transformations—he observed, “I’m hard-pressed to come up with a historical example of quietism and commitment to fighting injustice going together.” That commitment defined the life of Colson and remains a model for us today.
Os Guinness offered a fitting concluding thought that points us in a better direction of cultural engagement. Guinness observed that “our Lord himself was not just present, but he was active—speaking, healing, delivering, driving money changers out of the temple, and so on.” We should follow the example of Christ himself, actively engaged as salt and light in the world, contending for the faith and engaging the culture—with an eye towards restoring the culture—all from a distinctively Christian worldview.