Prerequisites for Cultural Transformation

on March 24, 2017

Different approaches in obeying Christ’s command to make disciples of all nations, the approach preferred by many Evangelical thinkers, which is cultural transformation, and the challenges faced by Christians in engaging the secular world, were reviewed in two recent articles based on presentations and discussion at the L’Abri Conference in Rochester Minnesota on Feb. 3-4. An additional presentation there concerned the elements necessary to achieve cultural change to move a society before any political change is possible. It was given by Bob Osburn, founder and Director the Wilberforce Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Osborn emphasized the complexity of social change, and pointed to the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, and his advocacy of cultural rather than political change being decisive for a society. Osburn feels that the efforts of Christians in the late twentieth century could have been much more successful, whereas they turned out to be disastrous, because they focused on political action without the necessary cultural support.

Osburn said that a Christian approach to social change must take account of the Bible, its creation/fall/redemption/consummation narrative, and it must be “theologically astute,” taking “serious account of the image of God in us, as well as the reality of sin.” It should also, Osburn believes, be Gramscian, focusing on culture rather than politics, but also aiming for “logically, but not temporally, economic and political change.”

“Why is social change resisted?” Osborn asked. The reasons include: 1) Humans like stasis; they are “wired for stability.” Additionally, because American society has been “deeply impacted by Christianity,” American Christians tend to identify as conservative. 2) Change may violate “sacred norms.” 3) The powerful want to maintain their power. 4) Some people may be temperamentally structured for stasis, and thus resist change.

Osburn identified five things are needed for Christian cultural transformation. The first is people as “transformative agents,” in which there is “significant discipleship in the way of Jesus Christ.” Some benefits “that occur when people are evangelized and discipled” are: a) increased social capital – people “serve one another in love” – b) people “promote virtue” (there is a “virtuous cycle” – when people begin to be virtuous, other people want to be virtuous) – c) the creation of trust, and d) a sacrificial way of life.

These changes involve the priority of altruistic love. But the conversion of substantial numbers of people is of very limited effect on society unless there is appreciable support from “elite levels of society.” Osburn drew a contrast between this requirement and the expectation that if enough people are converted to Christianity, some of them will effect social change. “We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that is a faulty social change model.” Even if there are lots of converts, if “they are not from elite levels of society, you will not get social change.” Osburn said that there are many societies in the world in which masses of people are coming to the Christian faith, but “elites are not truly converting, and they are maintaining highly corrupt situations.” Early Christian transformation by contrast was not just personal, but also “social and society wide .”

The second needed component of Christian transformation is “seeing the church as a model nation … a visible example to society of how to organize its affairs … how to genuinely know, and then finally to discover, that it needs God … Israel was a model nation” in the Old Testament. “God designed it” to show righteousness to other peoples. In the New Testament, there is a “multi-ethnic church,” to “demonstrate to the world … how to organize its affairs, how to know reality as it really is, and why ultimately it needs God.” God’s wisdom is to be made known through the church. Especially the leaders of historically non-Christian societies assume that there is no alternative to tyranny or anarchy. Churches “can speak truth to power, as long as they are independent” of the state. “Churches remind politicians that they are not all powerful.”

The “third component” of Christian cultural transformation in Osburn’s model is the need for a Christian worldview, or a “new mentality.” Major worldviews offer their analyses of the problem with the world and the solution. If the true problem is not identified, there will be no solution, because the proper treatment will not be prescribed. This is important because with social change what we are interested in changing is motivation, the “loves and desires” of people. Through changing habits, our minds begin to change. This is confirmed by neurological research. Osburn noted that Francis Schaeffer said that change begins with thinkers, whose thought is filtered through creative artists and culture shapers, and eventually to the general public. Evangelical Christians are, however, not predominant in the academy. They in fact come to only a few percentage points of the professoriate. Liberals do not need a high birth rate, Osburn said, because the American academy is overwhelmingly liberal/left, and often convert the children of Christians and conservatives to a liberal/left perspective. In support of a Christian worldview, Osburn held that three things should be emphasized to the wider world: 1) Christian teaching corresponds to reality, 2) its teachings are internally consistent, 3) it adequately answers the question it claims to be asking (what exists, what is wrong with the world, and what is the solution), and 4) Christianity produces time tested and positive impacts, both personally and on society.

The fourth element in social change is a high performing network to support change. Osburn noted the work of a Christian scholar, University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter, who has said that cultural change occurs by the action of “dense networks of elites who are operating in common purpose within institutions at the high prestige centers of cultural production.” For our society, these institutions include universities and colleges, the mass media, and Hollywood. “Changing the cultural consensus, which is what high performing networks do, is not about gaining political power first and foremost, or successfully marketing a Christian worldview, or bringing lots of people to Christ … it is about mobilizing networks of cultural leaders who promote a believable Christian vision for society which rejects previous cultural visions, and which is accepted by the masses.”

Osburn pointed to the Clapham Group, which supported the efforts of William Wilberforce in early nineteenth century England. The Clapham Group, Osburn said, “is still one of the greatest examples of an effective high performing network that changes the cultural consensus.” The entire English nation held a consensus that England was a “vastly better society” in 1850 than in 1770. In 1770, about a fourth to a third of all single women in London were prostitutes, a situation greatly improved by the mid-nineteenth century. Many other examples of social improvement could be given, Osburn said, but they were largely a result of the effect of the Clapham community.

Osburn said that Jesus mobilized high performing networks, particularly the network of his disciples. Jesus and his disciples did not live in a center of high cultural production, but the focus of Christian activity moved in that direction. The mission of the apostles began in Jerusalem and ended in Rome. Osburn said it took a transcendent God to make an impact beyond the high performing cultural centers of Jesus’ day. But God knew that the disciples would move to a high performing cultural center, and simultaneously a mass movement was begun which supported the cultural change brought by Christianity. The mobilizing of resources by high performing networks is important .The Clapham community “had the time to do what they did because they had money.” They either had the time to invest in social change, or could mobilize others for social change.

The fifth element in social change is “the virtuous leader who acts as an authentic motivator.” Such leaders are important “in making effective social change.” Both Moses and David in the Old Testament were virtuous leaders. Such leaders must “courageously identify with others, as Jesus did.” Sometimes, however, reformers become “seduced by power, and they are not the virtuous leaders” that are needed. On the other hand, Osburn said many church leaders in the non-Western world, while not personally corrupt, will not get involved with politics, because there is so much corruption. But even where virtuous leaders do step out to press for change, mass support of leaders is important for effective cultural change.

It seems to this writer that the most severe problem for contemporary Christians in seeking cultural transformation is the lack of a commonly held Christian worldview. Not only is this lacking in society, but there has been a diminution in recent decades of what Christian consensus remains in society. Religious liberalism, which offers a gospel of material improvement and spiritual self-determination, is not the gospel of Jesus, which emphasizes faith in God and repentance of sin. The expounding of Scripture to show this, and apologetics in defense of Scripture and what it teaches, is therefore crucial in advancing the Christian worldview needed for cultural transformation in twenty-first century society.

  1. Comment by Estabrooks on April 4, 2017 at 9:56 am

    Excellent, but troubling.
    I agree completely that the focus on changing the political before the cultural was a mistake. This article has really helped clarify my thinking on the role of Christians in politics, etc.
    But here’s the rub, and a question. In several places you make the point that we (Christians), in order to effect a cultural change, need to establish a “high performing network” from “elite levels of society” in order to bring about widespread influence/changes in cultural values.
    But! How do we do that when Christians are, effectively, locked out of the “elite levels of society”, i.e., locked out of the primary influencers of culture; academia and entertainment? You even make the point about the small percentage of professors who are Evangelical Christians.
    So what do we do?
    🙂
    Thanks for your thoughts.

  2. Comment by Rick Plasterer on May 30, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Dear Esabrooks,

    I saw your comment awhile back, but significantly after your posting it. I just haven’t gotten around to responding, and do apologize. If you’re still checking this article, I think you have an excellent criticism of the vision advanced by Osburn and Hunter. They may be right; I think in large measure they are right, but as you correctly observe, orthodox Christians are shut out of academia. This is truer today than a generation ago, and looks like it will be increasingly true in business and the professions as licensing requirements will have antidiscrimination clauses that require accommodation of sin. Also Christians schools will be faced with accreditation and funding challenges to their Christian character, or even outright prohibition of it.
    As Rod Dreher has noted, even those taking the “Benedict Option,” of forming tightly bound Christian communities will need a measure of religious freedom to legally exist. But I think that it is in such future communities, with clear and enforced standards of Christian faith and practice, that it might be possible to develop a fairly high culture. And of course, we shouldn’t stop fighting for religious freedom in the public square (which here means especially academia and the mass media).

    The Clapham Group existed when England was a Christian nation – that is not our situation today. So yes, I do think that having the “high performing networks” that Osburn sees as crucial to cultural change is a very limited possibility in our day. But we can strive for excellence in more faithful communities than we have had in the last generation or so, that seriously block out the post-Christian culture, which I think is possible, but that requires thought and determination. And we can do our best without compromising with sin where we are allowed to exist in the wider American culture. It does happen that valuable people from disfavored groups are hired and retained. But it appears that we can only try to be salt and light in a limited area for awhile, maybe a long while.

    Rick

  3. Comment by Rolf Östlund on October 1, 2022 at 4:03 am

    Thanks for this long, detailed review – the feeling comes as if I were there myself….

    Rolf Ö – Sweden

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.