One Catholic Church?

James Davison Hunter says that, “…Christianity in North America…is a weak culture; weak insofar as it is fragmented in it’s core beliefs and organization, without a coherent collective identity and mission, and often divided within itself, often with unabated hostility.”

My question: “what’s the solution?”

Are Hymns Old or Preaching New?

Jared Wilson suggests that hymns aren’t outdated as much as the progression of preaching that has morphed into something that makes hymns sounds weird (link). The point being that preaching is no longer as Gospel-saturated as it once was, which provided the fitting response of the hymn because the emotions were engaged within the context of Biblical preaching. Lot’s of people say that hymns are too doctrinal and too God-centered. This explains why many newer songs lack any doctrinal precision and are filled with repetitions of how God loves us and how we love Him, as if love is the lone attribute of God toward us and us toward Him.

More on Antinomianism

Andrew Sandlin wrote a good post this week on the same subject that I keep seeing – Christians who use grace as a cover for antinomianism. Sandlin says:

We ourselves are required to rebuke evil and have no company with it (Eph. 5:11–13).

What many of today’s grace-talking non-judgmentalists actually want is a grandfatherly God who overlooks their rebellion and favors them despite their gross, unrepentant sin.  They want to fornicate, despise God’s church and its ordinances, observe pornography, abuse prescription (and illegal) drugs, profane God’s name, revel in lewdness, spurn the godly counsel of parents and pastors and teachers, eschew hard work, and otherwise lust to be accepted by an apostate, pagan culture — all while assuming the pious protection of God’s grace.

Book Review of Daniel Hyde’s “Welcome to a Reformed Church”

Hyde, Daniel R.. Welcome to a Reformed Church: A Guide for Pilgrims. Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust Pub., 2010. Print.

Reformation Trust provided this copy for a honest review on my part, so here it is:

Rev. Hyde offers readers a primer on the history and doctrine of the Reformed Church, focusing mainly on the 3 Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dordt).

The Good:

Although an Evangelical Baptist, I am indebted to the 3 forms more than any other confession, catechism, or doctrinal formulation. I welcome with joy this brief book which introduces many to a heritage that is little-known in the broader American Evangelical Church.

Rev. Hyde takes great care to represent Reformed theology as a religion of the heart and mind. Hyde states,

“God has established an inseparable connection between truth and godliness. If truth remains in our heads but does not proceed to dwell in our hearts and find expression in our conduct, then we are no different, James says, than the devils (James 2:18-19).”

 Many have criticized Reformed theology as being arrogant and cerebral. While there are some who may unfortunately represent the Reformed heritage in such a way, this certainly is unrepresentative of the whole. Hyde commends Scottish Presbyterian John “Rabbi” Duncan’s quote, “I’m first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a Paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse the order.” Hyde reminds us that we are first Christians, and secondly catholics. Catholic in the sense that we affirm solidarity with the church behind us, the church around us, and the church ahead of us.

Hyde also reminds us that Reformed theology highlights the importance of Sanctification. While many may first think of God’s sovereignty and Justification as key Reformed doctrines, the Reformers cared just as much about holy living. Hyde notes:

“Our Reformed fathers focused heavily on holy living. The volume of teachings they devoted to sanctification in their confessions and catechisms is striking. The Heidelberg Catechism devotes forty-four of its 129 questions and answers, more than one-third of its material, to sanctification, while the Westminster Larger Catechism devotes an impressive eighty-two of 196 questions and answers (42 percent) to this subject. By this emphasis, the Reformed churches declared that Calvinism is no mere religion of “head knowledge,” and we cannot live as if it makes us the “frozen chosen,” as we are sometimes derisively known. It is a religion of head and heart.”

The last emphasis that I found helpful was Hyde’s treatment of the Church and the centrality of the means of grace through Word and Sacraments. He reminds us that,

“It is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then, that creates the people of God. The gospel not only saves us from our sins and the wrath of God, it places us in vital union with Jesus Christ and other Christians. Thus, the church is the fruit of the gospel; it is not our own creation, but a creation of the triune God of grace.”

The Bad:

Adventures in Christian Unity

Like many Christians, I’ve wished that Christians could be more united even while I am a Protestant, a member of the most divided of the branches of the Christian tradition.  Recently I read two articles about two efforts to address our current divisions.  One is far away from me in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the other nearby in the Northern suburbs of Chicago.  The Christ Together movement in Lake County, IL, has apparently spread to Hampton Roads in coastal Virginia too.

I read the article about Argentina first.  Here are some excerpts from the article that explain the rationale and story:

Argentina’s unity movement is based on a simple biblical concept.

“Each time the New Testament speaks of the church in a city such as Ephesus, it is always singular, never plural,” says Carlos Mraida, pastor of Del Centro First Baptist Church. “Yet when the New Testament speaks of leadership in a city, it is always plural. The church is singular, but leadership is plural.”…

A new spirit of unity arose in the early 1980s, when hundreds of Argentine cities formed pastors councils thanks to the crusades of Carlos Annacondia. The Pentecostal businessman-turned-preacher required the formation of a council before he would visit a city. The decade closed with two national retreats attended by 1,200 pastors.The Buenos Aires council was founded in 1982 by five pastors: Bongarrá, Saracco, Mraida, charismatic pastor Jorge Himitián, and Baptist pastor Pablo Deiros. Their starting point was creating friendships between pastors, said Saracco, as it’s easier to unite people than denominations.

Next came reconciliation over past wrongs. The political tumult during the nation’s Dirty War of the 1970s and ’80s created a deep divide between mainline churches, which defended human rights, and evangelical churches, which remained silent, says Saracco. At a downtown summit in 1999, the council asked the two sides to forgive one another in front of the 250,000 gathered.

Over time, pastors wanted a formalized structure and created rotating elected offices of president, vice president, and other traditional positions. But functioning as a typical institution did not work well, says Bongarrá, and the council lost momentum. So in 2006 the council invited the founders (minus Deiros, who had left for Fuller Theological Seminary) to come back and revitalize the council. The four agreed—on one condition.

Responding to Anthony Bradley about “Practicing True Diversity” and His Dangerous Insinuations About Racial Motives

Anthony Bradley, a writer for World magazine, as well as the author of “Liberating Black Theology“, posted an article “Practicing True Diversity“, in which he advocates more cultural diversity within Evangelicalism to reflect the global Christian faith, but insinuates that Voddie Baucham, Tony Evans, and Thabiti Anyabwile are invited to mostly “White” Evangelical conferences as a token effort to show diversity. Here are my issues with Bradley:

1. While I wholeheartedly agree with his plea for more diversity, and would even amen his observation of the lack of Latinos and Asians in many of the Evangelical conferences across America, I would be bit more tempered, lest we advocate some form of Affirmative Action for every Evangelical conference or gathering in the country. Now I think that we should pay attention to racial diversity; we are not to be color-blind, for God is not color-blind, which means that we should positively affirm the global Church and show appreciation for the diversity that God has given us. This however should not equate to some form of Affirmative Action scale where we make so much of race to call to attention the fact that a certain conference only had one “token” black guy and whites. Bradley should apologize to Evans, Baucham, and Anyabwile.
2. I hate to state the obvious, but many of these conferences are hosted by churches that are predominantly white. I’m not suggesting that you should only invite your own kind, but is it really reasonable to expect a local church to reflect global diversity when their local demographic is predominantly white? I commend Bethlehem Baptist church and the leadership of John Piper, who dealt with the reality that there was a sizable black demographic in the Twin Cities and therefore wouldn’t be content with an all-white church. They have sought diversity in their pastoral staff and have targeted blacks in the community, targeting African immigrants, which are a growing population in the Twin Cities. I bring up Piper, because he has invited people of various ethnic backgrounds to his conferences throughout the years. Does Bradley have issue with Piper? I certainly hope not, considering his call for global missions and adoption of a black daughter. I’m sure that Bradley would offer more qualifications to sooth some of my angst. I realize that a brief post can’t die the death of a thousand qualifications, but I caution Bradley to be careful with what he says and insinuates. I have read some comments on Voddie Bauchamn’s Facebook wall, that includes a peaved individual who actually invited Voddie to speak at a homeschool conference. I will leave the details of the comment private to Facebook, however this person made it absolutely clear that Voddie was invited because of his passion and convictions relating to the topic of discussion and race played no equation at all. I don’t think Bradley gave enough forethought to how his comments would seem to insinuate that people who have invited black speakers were simply trying to appease their own conscience for diversity sake. Power hungry politicians prostitute racial tensions for the sake of gain in the polls, but I would certainly hope that the Body of Christ would not play the race card in such a fashion. If anything, Bradley should be celebrating the prominence of blacks on the Evangelical consciousness…including his own.    
3. I still like Anthony Bradley and don’t think he should be crucified for his post. Many followers of the quoted black invitees have show disgust with Bradley and have written World Magazine to complain. I acknowledge the tension of racial relations and am in fact going public with this post, but I still stand by Bradley as a thoughtful Christian who longs for more diversity in American Evangelicalism and has been willing to call out the black church to abandon liberation theology and other harmful theologies. For that, I give him praise. This is not some Blood-Crip thing where blacks are shooting each other in the Evangelical ranks, but I do wish Bradley would have been more careful about the grief he has caused to many by his post. His post has not brought more reconciliation and healing to whatever racial strife exists, but reinforces a stereoptypical bitter prophetic voice that I think no longer applies the way it once did. Bradley presupposes that the motives of the conference was to invite a token black; he even calls into question the competence of his brothers as he suggests that they are mostly invited because of their color and less to do with their competence to address the matters they are called upon to address, and Bradley is perilously close to suggesting that his fellow brothers are accomplices in a purely racially motivated, conscience appeasing effort from the white Evangelicals. This is a lose-lose-lose from Bradley’s end and I wish he would now offer the necessary qualifications to the subscribers and readers of World (I have been a subscriber of World and am not renewing my subscription, but due to other reasons that Bradley’s post). I would hope he would demand the same if I carelessly suggested that he is a “token black” for WORLD Magazine and for his publishers because they are aiming at some minimal level of diversity for conscience sake. I find it ironic that he will offer blanket criticism for the Evangelical conferences that invite certain black speakers, but not criticize Crossway publishers because they happen to publish a disproportiante number of white to black authors, ironically including  both Bradley and Bauchamn. Should we throw Crossway under the bus as well? I hope not. Just to be clear, I am employing ”inductio ad absurdum” (arguing against Bradley because of the absurd consistency it would demand).  I speak in love and hope that Bradley will offer us a better vision and more responsible criticism in his future appeals for diversity. I trust he knows better and look forward to what he has to say.

Glenn Beck’s Conflation of LDS Doctrine, American Exceptionalism, and his Call for Spiritual Renewal

I admire Glenn Beck’s love for country, but there is more than meets the eye behind all his rhetoric. He conflates religion with America because the LDS Church believes that Jesus came to America, that God blessed the “Jews” who responded to Jesus here in America (none of this has been historically or scientifically substantiated). They also believe that the Garden of Eden was placed in none other than, MO. Creation began with America, quite literally in the middle of America (
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/gardenofeden.htm
).

Mormons also believe in a millennial reign of Christ at His second coming, where He shall come and establish His reign in…you guessed it, America. Quoting their statement of faith:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

Not to mention that the whole LDS Church is founded on the premise that the Christian Church had been in apostasy since Christ and needed to be restored. Guess who it was restored to? Yep, an American in America. Go figure. Jesus founds His “pure” Church and entrusts the “purer” scriptures in America.

So there you have it, God started creation in America, placed the Garden of Eden in America, Jesus visited America, restored the true and “pure” church by visiting an American in America, entrusting Smith with “purer” scriptures (which were published and promulgated from America), and is coming back to America to establish His kingdom. All of this will help explain why Beck’s patriotism is much more than meets the eye and why Evangelicals have good reason to resist much of his rhetoric.

Great Analysis on the New Evangelical Heartthrob that is…Glenn Beck

Just read a great post by Russell Moore on the role Glenn Beck is playing in the national political scene and his increasing approval among Evangelicals.

Some of Moore’s penetrating analysis includes the following:

It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined “revival” and “turning America back to God” that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

Parents, Don’t Raise “Fake” or “Mutated” Christian Children (even CNN is telling us what’s wrong with Christianity…and they are, gulp, right!!!)

A recent piece from CNN, titled “More Teens becoming ‘fake’ Christians”, is yet another confirmation from “secular” media about what’s wrong with modern day American Evangelicalism.

If you’re the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning:Your child is following a “mutant” form of Christianity, and you may be responsible.

Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls “moralistic therapeutic deism.” Translation: It’s a watered-down faith that portrays God as a “divine therapist” whose chief goal is to boost people’s self-esteem.

Wow!!! Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is now being thrown around as the common problem with Christianity. I wonder if Christan Smith copyrighted the term. Dean also calls it a “mutant” form of Christianity. Strong words!!!

Some adults don’t expect much from youth pastors. They simply want them to keep their children off drugs and away from premarital sex.

Others practice a “gospel of niceness,” where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says.

“If teenagers lack an articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too spineless to merit much in the way of conversation,” wrote Dean, a professor of youth and church culture at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Dean calls out “spineless” faith that doesn’t merit devotion. We seriously need to ask ourselves as parents if we are emulating a fear-based rejectionist view of the world and our mission to it, or if we are passionately engaging all areas of life with Christ, not just the living room. It is not good enough to be “nice”. The world is happy with us being merely nice.

Anyhow, more sobering news to us Evangelicals. We need to get back to “normal” Biblical Christianity, which is very radical and turned the world upside down. Loving our Lord, the sacred Scripture, the family of God, and the mission of God will set us on a right path. Apparently we don’t love Jesus all that much, or prefer a distorted image of who He is, don’t know Scripture, have forsaken what it truly means to be the Church, and turned the mission of God into merely being nice to those around us, taking solace in the mutual niceness and esteem we get from those we are kind to.

Parents, awake!!! Your kids are emulating your phony dispassionate faith and they are adhering to a mutated form of the Gospel. The world is even telling us what’s wrong, which means that it is seriously time to wake up and repent and be the people of God!!!

3 Very Different Documentaries on Christian Engagement: “Hell House”, “Jesus Camp”, and “Lord, Save us from Your Followers”

Well, with my new Netflix subscription in effect, I was able to take in a few documentaries (I am a big documentary fan for some odd reason). I saw “Jesus Camp“, “Hell House“, and “Lord, Save Us from Your Followers“. These 3 documentaries offered 3 very different pictures of Christian cultural engagement.

“Jesus Camp” essentially portrays Pentecostal catechesis of children; full of intercessory prayer, tongues, and Spiritual warfare…all intended to claim the world for Jesus. Kids are taught to go all out, to ramp up their opposition to “sin” in the cultural battles of our day, and to share Jesus with everyone. Hey, to be honest, there’s a lot good there, however watching the film grieved me in many ways. There is no dialectical aspect to sharing the faith and engaging culture. Everything is an all out war. Also, a little girl “felt led” to share Jesus with someone at the bowling alley in typical “hit and run” fashion and the parents affirmed it. The interviews with some of the kids, including a young girl reveals some expected immaturity, however it is more dangerous because their is a spiritualizing of their immaturity. In one scene, a girl criticizes churches that don’t yell to Jesus when they pray, going so far as to say that Jesus only likes worship from the churches that yell and get exuberant. What is sadder is that parents are reinforcing all of this. So, not only are these kids at war with culture, they are also condescending of the broader church.

Ouch…Greg Laurie calls Christians “uptight, offensive, lame, inept” Regarding Evangelism

Greg Laurie comments:

“If there’s one thing that Christians and non-Christians have in common, it’s this: We’re both uptight about evangelism…far too many Christians today are unnecessarily offensive, hopelessly lame, and generally inept at communicating…we’re just no good at evangelism.”

Makes me wonder, “Can we rightly call ourselves Evangelicals if we don’t evangelize?”

Rick Hogaboam’s Review of James Davison Hunter’s “To Change the World” (Chp. 6 “The Cultural Economy of American Christianity”)

James Davison Hunter’s “To Change the World”, Chp. 6 “The Cultural Economy of American Christianity”

Hunter notes that Christians tend to be middle class folks and don’t present a bunch of monetary clout, while at the same time noting that faith-based philanthropy has been impressive. Hunter observes (81), “…its economic influence is not in the leadership of American capitalism, but primarily within the middle classes”.  Later on, Hunter adds (81), “faith-based philanthropy is impressive”. I think here of the recent stats I have seen which show that Christians have out-given their liberal counterparts when it comes to charity.

In speaking of cultural resources, Hunter does seem to note that Christians do have a voice, albeit a small one. He moves on to assess cultural capital, and things get worse for the Christian. I think that Hunter rightly notes the decline of denominational influence in America (85):

The cultural production of the mainline tradition now tends to exist within denominational and transdenominational bodies and tends to be oriented to its own internal needs and interests. Its public voice, once prominent and vigorous, has become so marginal that it is nearly invisible outside of its own constituencies.

The modern Evangelical world was created in reaction to the liberalism and decline of the mainline denominations, but have not fared much better, according to Hunter. Though Evangelicals have created “parallel institutions” to combat and compete with their secular counterparts, Hunter offers harsh criticism for the Evangelical community, “Many Evangelical scholars are committed to academic excellence, but they work in a community that neither values it highly nor supports is generously” (86).

Hunter admits that there are exceptions to the rule, but that Evangelical efforts fail because of three features. Hunter states, “First, the works that are produced are almost exclusively directed to the internal needs of the faithful” (87). Essentially, Christians make stuff for Christians. Tough to have cultural impact when we cater to ourselves as a sub-culture.

Secondly, Hunter proceeds, “Second, this cultural productivity all tends to operate closer to the margins than to the center of the broader field of cultural production” (87). We use our own movie producers, book publishers, music publishers, etc, and thus don’t appeal to a broader audience. While I agree that marginal parallel publishers won’t have a broader impact on society, I would also say that much of this is due to an intentional shunning from those producers at the center. They don’t want to propagate the work of Christians as a matter of conviction, but will only do so when there is a buck to be made (“Purpose-Driven Life”, “Your Best Life Now”), and even then I think that the big book distributors mock the whole Christian subculture as one infatuated with self.

Thirdly, Hunter offers the following criticism (87-88):

Third, cultural production in the Evangelical world is overwhelmingly oriented toward the popular. Very much like its retail politics, its music is popular music, its art tends to be popular (highly sentimentalized and commercialized) art, its theater is mega-church drama, its publishing is mainly mass-market book publishing with heavy bent toward “how-to” books, its magazines are mass-circulation monthlies, its television is either in the format of a worship service or the talk show….While there are exceptions to the rule, overall, the populist orientation of Evangelical cultural production reflects the most kitschy expressions of consumerism and often the most crude forms of market instrumentalism.

I have one response to Hunter: OUCH!!!

Hunter concludes the chapter (92):

For all of the vitality and all of the good intention among Christian believers, the whole (in terms of its influence in the larger political economy of cultural production) is significantly less than the sum of its parts. And thus the idea that American Christianity could influence the larger culture in ways that are healthy and humane is, for the time being, doubtful.

I sadly concur with Hunter. He hits the nail on the head when he accuses Evangelicals of not prizing academia, thinking, and an easy demographic for “how-to” and self-help books. He is right when he says that most of our cultural output is for ourselves. He is right in stating that we are “popular”. I would even add that we are about 6-12 months behind the culturally popular. When Guitar Hero is the rage, expect a Christian parallel of “Praise Hero” in about 6 months. I think that the Christian demographic is strongest in the South, and no disrespect to the South, but the biggest popular cultural artifact of the South is Nascar. I actually applaud the social conservatism of the South in their views of marriage, etc., but it really doesn’t stretch much beyond that. You really don’t think of the typical Southerner as the one who wishes to change the world, let alone know the geography of the world. Just the typical stereotype. Southerners are known more for Americana than Academia, aspiring to be a “Duke of Hazard” rather than a Duke in society. Count me in as one who was a zealous purveyor of a bumper sticker as the way in which to change the world, who would gather in a safe Christian establishment and herald the new book on how to be a better Christian, and praise the latest “cool” Christian flick which featured antiquated special effects and subpar actors. It is stupid for Christians to think that we will make a global impact by seeking the approval of man by being “cool” as they popularly define it in the moment. We must grow up.

Rick Hogaboam’s Review – “To Change the World” (Chp. 4)

Hunter offers 11 propositions on culture—seven about culture and four about cultural change.  I will use my friend Scott Kistler’s summary of these 11 propositions:

Culture is a system of truth claims and moral obligations: These are often unconscious rather than “exist[ing] as a set of propositions” (33).  Culture is how define reality, and it is found in what we think of as “obvious” and is found in our language.  As it’s been said in at least one sociology class that I’ve had before, culture is like water for a fish: it’s assumed.  Therefore, it is not easy to change or challenge one’s own culture.

Culture is a product of history: The fact that culture has been built over centuries also helps to give culture its staying power.  Cultures have changed over time and therefore they continue to change; “it is just that they are not easily changed in these way or changed in the direction we want them to change.  The inertia built into culture by virtue of its relationship to its long history tends to make it lumbering and erratic at the same time” (34).

Culture is intrinsically dialectical: Culture is not only symbolic, it is also made.  In other words, we make something with the symbols.  Ideas are therefore connected with the institutions that produce culture.  Speaking sociologically, he gives examples of these institutions: “the market, the state, education, the media of mass communications, scientific and technological research, and the family” (35).  There is also the dialectical (two-way) relationship between individuals who make these institutions and institutions that influence individuals through their cultural production.  “Institutions have much greater power,” he writes, but our prevailing cultural theory about individual hearts and minds tends to ignore their power (35).

Culture is a resource and, as such, a form of power: Certain people and things in cultures have more cultural power than others.  He calls this power “symbolic capital.”  He gives numerous examples: certain people (like a person with a Ph.D.), schools (like Yale), newspapers (like the New York Times), and awards (like the Nobel Prize) simply have more symbolic capital than other things in the same category, and they can transfer some of that power to other things.  As he notes, think of the process of book “blurbs” that can give a certain prestige to a book because of the reputation of the “blurber.”

Cultural production and symbolic capital are stratified in a fairly rigid structure of “center” and “periphery”: As Hunter says, this follows the previous proposition.  Certain people and things are at the center of cultural production, while others are at the periphery.  “With cultural capital, it isn’t quantity but quality that matters most” (37), and I should note that I think he means quality as judged by the culture’s symbols and institutions.  USA Today, he notes, outsells the New York Times, but the Times’ position at the cultural center allows it to enjoy greater status and confer status on other cultural products.

Culture is generated within networks: Contrary to the “great man” theory of history expounded by Hegel and Carlyle, he writes that “the key actor in history is not an individual genius but rather the network and new institutions that are created out of those networks” (38).  While brilliant people may lead “networks of similarly oriented people and similarly aligned institutions,” that is their necessary context to make the great impacts that they are credited with making (38).

Culture is neither autonomous nor fully coherent: Culture is not independent from other factors in a society, but rather is bound together with institutions like the economy and the state.  Our economy commodifies and sells many non-physical cultural products and the increasing power of the government means that government has a great role in cultural production (like public education).  A culture also has “fields,” cultures within cultures.  I think what he means by this are things like professions and voluntary associations, although it’s not entirely clear how these are different from cultural institutions.  I imagine that these are in some ways secondary institutions, not the great commanding institutions of society.  Finally, there are what we usually call subcultures, although he doesn’t use this word: “relatively distinct, and often competing perspectives” relating to regional, ethnic, religious, or other differences (40).

Cultures change from the top down, rarely if ever from the bottom up: Because the production of culture is so influenced by elites, institutions, and networks, long-lasting change is most likely to come through these processes

Change is typically initiated by elites who are outside of the centermost positions of prestige: The elites at the center aren’t going to challenge the norms that they are influential in creating, but challenging those norms takes some form of power, which elites not at the center have.  He gives the analogy of Vilfredo Pareto, whose writings have influenced Hunter on this point: elites are either lions (defenders of their tradition) or foxes (challengers of elite traditions).  When foxes succeed, they have difficulty establishing order, and then lions come back or “the foxes become lions” (43).

World-changing is most concentrated when the networks of elites and the institutions they lead overlap: Cultures change when elites cooperate.

Cultures change, but rarely if ever without a fight: This is pretty self-explanatory.  Hunter also draws on Robert Wuthnow’s work to note that for an alternative to take hold, “its discourse, moral demands, institutions, symbols, and rituals” need to be close enough to the culture not to seem alien, and different enough to not be “co-opted” by elites.

Hunter concludes this chapter by stating quite boldly, “Christians will not engage the culture effectively, much less hope to change it, without attention to the factors mentioned here” (2010:47).

The take away for me comes really from points six, eight, nine, and ten.

In proposition 6, Hunter views networks as powerful in affecting change. I think history bears this out. MLK Jr. didn’t do it all alone, but advanced the cause for civil rights much more effectively through networks that united the masses in one powerful voice. This makes me wonder if the church would in fact be more effective if we had fewer networks or denominations.  We’re all familiar with the power the Catholic Church has globally and one could consider them a network of sorts. We Evangelicals are so fragmented that the idea of having powerful networks seem like a pipe dream. There have been parachurch and organization attempts—I think of Promise Keepers and the National Association of Evangelicals. Call me pessimistic, but I seriously doubt that the Promise Keepers has affected great change for marital health among Evangelicals. As for the National Association of Evangelicals, they are a joke. Onetime president declared that Benny Hinn and R.C. Sproul were both equally Evangelicals. Haggard was definitely trying to view all fragmented branches as one, but the fact is that Benny Hinn and R.C. Sproul aren’t remotely close. Sproul could probably stomach a Catholic mass before attending a Benny Hinn revival service. There are some large denominations, like the SBC, which have wielded some clout, or have attempted to do so, but is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Pope thinks.

In proposition 8, Hunter sees value in top down institutional change. The Christians need to embrace this role of creating institutions that will seriously rival the centers of academia and the like. It is sad to think that Yale, Princeton, and other Christian founded universities hardly resemble the founding mission, so one could easily be discouraged at such efforts. There have been some lasting institutions that have garnered respect…I think of Wheaton, among others. I am also curious in seeing the legacy New Saint Andrews (Moscow, ID) will leave.

In proposition 9, Hunter notes the importance of elitist engagement for change. I guess there was a bit of truth to the notion that if you could get the smartest, best-looking, most popular student saved, then the whole school would follow Well, not quite, but it does seem necessary to have some credibility within the higher echelons of academia. I think it is true, but doubt whether we should really play that game as Christians. My Pentecostal heritage bubbles up here, along with the radical Anabaptist reformers, in somewhat despising the elitists of the day. I think of Paul who said that he intentionally didn’t speak in the flowery rhetoric of the day, but instead spoke prophetically in the power of the Spirit so that the confidence of believers would rest not in the cunning wisdom of man, but in the power of the Spirit.  However, I do think that Christians need to make an intellectual appeal to the ranks of college students churning in and out of the university. We do need to rival the talking heads and challenge their assertions.

Proposition 10 essentially states that institutions and elites need to overlap to affect great change. Ummm, I guess that means we create great institutions with excellent elitists. Well, I know it is much more complex than that; however it would be great if there was greater quality control in who should be a pastor in American Evangelical Churches, etc. Once upon a time, it was expected that the pastor would be a community leader of sorts—a generalist on all things, well read on local news, well versed in community concern, Biblically and theologically competent, a reader of books, etc. This has changed. I think we have pastors today who disdain learning, can’t think critically, are clueless on community concerns though they state their great passion is to reach the community (go figure), are Biblically incompetent and theologically illiterate, and thus unable to  affect much change, besides being a pietistic example for the hearts of the people.

I think we would do much better as Evangelicals if we realized the propositions that Hunter proposes and stop disdaining institutions, the mind, and people who are smarter than us.

Pentecostal Denominations are the only ones Growing, all other major denominations in decline

Ed Stetzer penned a recent article in Christianity Today, “Life in Those Old Bones”, where he makes the positive case for renewal within a denominational context. I really liked what he had to say. The following somewhat surprised me:

Denominations appear to have fallen on difficult times. Theological controversies over core Christian beliefs have weakened some denominations. Others have succumbed to classic liberalism. A handful of denominations have reaffirmed their commitment to theological orthodoxy, but even many once-growing conservative denominations have experienced difficult days. All in all, membership in 23 of the 25 largest Christian denominations is declining (the exceptions being the Assemblies of God and the Church of God).

I am not surprised by the tough times, the theological controversies, a resurgence of creedal commitments, etc, but by the fact that the Assemblies of God and Church of God are the only 2 denominations growing of the 25 largest denominations. I know that the Pentecostal Church continues to lead the way in global missions and the establishment of the Church on various continents, but “WOW!!!”. What is also shocking is that every other major denomination is declining. The report is not saying that the Pentecostals have grown the much…they are the ONLY ones growing.

While I don’t serve in a Pentecostal church per se, I am theologically charismatic and influenced very much by my Assemblies of God upbringing. I can’t believe that Pentecostalism has gone from being a despised sect some 60 years ago to being the only growing movement today, while also reaching globally into every continent with no signs of slowing down. Post-Millennials should cozy up with Pentecostals, I guess

American Saints and Relics

No, I don’t just copy everything Peter Leithart writes and then post it on my blog.  But it wouldn’t be a terrible idea.  This post of his is short enough that I’m just going to copy and post it here.  Really interesting stuff.  I’m enjoying catching up on his blog after being away.

William Cavanugh notes (The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict): “although Jefferson was responsible for the complete separation of church and state in Virginia, Jefferson wrote in the language of medieval Christianity about the preservation of physical things associated with the creation of the declaration: ‘Small things may, perhaps, like the relics of saints, help to nourish our devotion to this holy bond of Union.’  Of the desk on which he drafted the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson expressed his hope that we might see it ‘carried in the procession of our nation’s birthday, as the relics of the saints are in those of the Church.’”  Cavanaugh cites a study that shows that “throughout the nineteenth century, virulently anti-Catholic leaders were inclined to borrow Catholic imagery to describe the nation’s founding.  The founders were ’saints,’ they raised ‘altars’ of freedom, their houses were ’shrines’ containing ‘relics,’ and so on.”

Practices, rituals, and language that no Protestant would tolerate at church found their home in American civil religion.