Faithful Presence

A fairly interesting discussion of the Christian impact on culture is to be found on Christianity Today's website here.

The article is an interview with James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Mr. Hunter's primary hypothesis is that cultural impact is not merely a factor of the quantity of material that a group or school contributes to the public sphere, but also a factor of the vehicles by which it arrives there. An interesting contrast brought up in the discussion is the fact that Christian publishing generates revenues of $10 billion annualy but is not at all discussed in the New York Times Review of Books. It is an example of structures of cultural elites controlling access to the cultural discussion.

How is it that American public life is so profoundly secular when 85 percent of the population professes to be Christian? If a culture were simply the sum total of beliefs, values, and ideas that ordinary individuals hold, then the United States would be a far more religious society. Looking at our entertainment, politics, economics, media, and education, we are forced to conclude that the cultural influence of Christians is negligible. By contrast, Jews, who compose 3 percent of the population, exert significant cultural influence disproportionate to their numbers, notably in literature, art, science, medicine, and technology. Gays offer another example. Minorities would have no effect if culture were solely about ideas, but that's clearly not the case.

His prescription is something he calls "Faithful Presence", as well as a thoughtful dialogue with the centers of cultural influence. Both are, I think, Chestertonian in nature.

Faithful Presence, in essence, is an abandonment of Nietzschean principles of 'will to power' by allowing Christian influence to permeate society through, well, actual Christian charity. According to Mr. Hunter, looking to change the culture directly is an adoption of the principles of power that Christians are railing against in the first place.

This does not constitute an abandonment of dialogue, but rather an insertion of Christian ideas into the intellectual conversation in a way that is inherently Christian in execution. So not just the end of the intellectual discussion (or the discussion of law, morals, art, etc.) must be Christian, but the means by which that discussion is engaged. The whole process must be recognizable as Christian, throughout.

This is where Mr. Hunter's thinking is reflecting G.K. Chesterton the most. Chesterton was not only known as a Christian in thought, but he was also perceived to be a Christian in his style, manner, bearing, and in all his dealings. He was a joy to be around, even when he disagreed with you.

It reminds me of a maxim of St. Josemaria Escriva: "Be firm in doctorine, but pliant in manner." The combination of charity in thought and deed is thoroughly Chestertonian.

The stakes are high, in that it is our ability to be Christian in the public sphere that is at stake. But I believe that Mr. Hunter's thesis is a useful reflection that reminds us that Our Lord said that as Christians we would be known by our love for each other.