Reflections on James K. A. Smith’s “How (Not) to Change the world”

 

Smith provides a superb overview of James Davison Hunter’s book “To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World.” In fact, he brings out even more clearly and concisely the arguments that Hunter gives. After his summary he continues the conversation and raises two points of concern. The first one is, “that Hunter’s critique of the neo-Anabaptist remains a critique of a caricature.” I wrote the same thing in the margins of Hunter’s book while I was reading it. I found my remark on page 234 (yes it took me that long to observe this and to note it in the margins). Hunter writes, “But they go too far to suggest that the lives and work of Christians in the world have no spiritual significance outside of the explicit enactments of church life” (p. 234). Does any neo-Anabaptist really believe this? Generalizations are necessary and it is helpful to create organizational categories. However, Hunter takes this caricature too far, and besides it is not necessary for his argument.

 

Smith notes a second concern with Hunter’s portrayal of neo-Anabaptists, namely: “if our calling is to faithfully make culture in a way that embodies God’s desires for his creation and is a foretaste of the coming Kingdom; and if, then, we’re not primarily concerned with changing the world but with making culture in a way that is faithful, then it’s not clear to me why so-called “parallel institutions” can’t be instantiations of faithful presence.” Smith here rightly observes that “many so-called “Christian” parallel institutions are worthy of critique because, rather than being sites of faithful culture-making, they are merely syncretistic examples of subcultural mimicry – “Jesusfied” versions of the majority culture.” However, where I disagree with Smith is when he talks about that other parallel institutions, “Insofar as such parallel institutions are still ‘in the world’ i.e., solidly located in the territory of creation), they can clearly still bear witness to what creation is called to be, thus fulfilling the obligation of faithful presence.” I don’t think faithful presence in a culture can be equated with hiding under a bushel. What type of culture making is this? What message is can this hidden parallel institution send to the surrounding world that makes sense to those outside of this hidden existence? To me it seems that the world outside of that parallel institution just goes on and is not in any significant way affected by the parallel institution. In this regard, I believe Smith discredits Hunter’s critique of neo-Anabaptists too much.