Summary Of To Change The World

Hunter writes To Change the World to Christians who want to change the world, but have tried to do so in many well intentioned, but misguided ways. Hunter divides the book into three essays, beginning with a discussion on why the Christian view of culture is mistaken.
Christians tend to have an idealized view of changing the world, but do not have a full understanding of culture. They long to change the world, but believe in “grass roots movements” and adopt the misconception if they are more faithful, more intentional, more holy they will be able to affect change in their culture. Hunter argues that this is mistaken. Culture is complex, there are many moving parts. In response to the misguided idealism of many Christians, Hunter offers eleven propositions for what he argues is a better way. He unpacks in these propositions ideas realistically describing culture and what cultural
change may look like. As he works through his first essay, he points out, using historical instances where culture was not changed by so-called grass roots movements, but cultural change came about because of connections, because of the powerful, because of technology, and institutions. Hunter argues that Christianity is a weak culture and that it is doubtful that Christians could change the larger culture in “healthy and humane” ways. As he concludes his first essay, he leads readers into his second with questions about power and how Christians obtain and use power.
Hunter begins his second essay addressing the mistaken attempts by Christians to turn to the government to bring about change.
Christians have mistaken politics for power in America. This begins Hunter’s discussion on three ways that Christians have tried to engage culture and failed. The first ideology he addresses is “the Christian right” who adopted a defensive posture toward the culture as it has “evolved”. The values that America was founded on have been lost and must be reclaimed. According to Hunter, those in the “Christian right” are seeking to engage culture by returning to a “Christian America”. The second ideology he addresses is those on the “Christian left”. These are the Christians who have adopted a “relevance to” posture of cultural engagement. These are Christians who seek to change the world by social justice. Using Old Testament prophets to proof text their positions, they believe that to change the world they need to develop a more relevant culture meeting the needs of the people. They blame the Christian right for the negative ways culture has responded to
Christians.
The third ideology Hunter addresses is what he terms the “neo-Anabaptists”. Those who hold this ideology have a “purity from” posture toward cultural engagement. Those who follow this ideology believe that the Church needs to be the center for a new society that rejects violence and is centered on discipleship. Like the Christian left, they hold the Christian right responsible for the response of culture to Christianity. As Hunter completes his critique of each of these ideologies, he sets the stage for his final essay. In this final essay, Hunter offers his alternative and invites Christians to consider how they might change the world for good.
In his final essay, Hunter proposes an alternative he refers to as “a faithful presence within”. Christians must remain faithful to the Gospel, but be present in culture. Christians should seek to flourish in the world, bring about change, but not for the sake of platform but because they genuinely care. Ironically, Hunter suggests that the ideology that he offers in this final essay may be unsuccessful. Perhaps, as Christians look to change the world, they are looking at a world that cannot be changed or controlled or managed. Ultimately, Hunter reminds Christians that they are to primarily to worship and honor God and cultural change is only secondary.