Comments on a post by The Native Tourist
Two things are necessary for kingdom-oriented cultural transformation: 1) Transformed Lives -- persons with a changed character ("power of truth presented with overwhelming love") and 2) Strategically distributed throughout society -- particularly in the culture industries where apprentices of Jesus are sorely lacking.
"Things will go right in human life and society only to the extent that a sufficient number of qualified people are adequately distributed and positioned to see to it that they go right." -- Dallas Willard
Not all will be called to positions of national influence. All are given spheres of influence expanding from one's home, work, neighborhood, and city. It is in the quiet faithfulness of bringing shalom to a broken world through our varied callings that society is changed. This, however, does not change the fact that certain institutions and cultural centers have more influence on more people that other ones do. For Christ's sake we must pray and work strategically for the redemption of all creation and culture.
Dave,
Would you agree, as Mr. Seel seems to being saying above, that cultural transformation is both/and, not either/or in terms of bottom-up and top-down? I think in terms of top-down, he is specifically addressing structural and institutional influence. What is the disadvantage of saying that both are important and that we should encourage individuals in either endeavour?
Dave,
I will just add that the recent death of William F. Buckley Jr. really drove home for me the structural influence one man can have in, for lack of a better term, "elite" circles, even in the face of a culture that is diametrically opposed to one's beliefs.
Of course, many of us are not called or situated to such a life. We are to be content and to embrace cultivating faithfulness in our small sphere of infuence.
I hear what you are saying, John.
Two comments: first, movie making (such as what was achieved in Amazing Grace) is by its scale a cooperative enterprise. How much of the message/expression is diluted in process?
Second,
When I heard Frederic Mathews-Green at GFU a couple of weeks ago, she talked about Christians getting involve in making movies and trying to get past the "gate keepers". She argued that even if we can get our stuff past the gate keepers (or better yet, put ourselves in the position of gate keepers) our message will still be drowned out by sheer cachophony of the popular culture. ("A tornado in a tile factory" was the image she used.) At best movies are remembered for a couple of months and are soon forgotten.
I suppose the real alternative is to pump into the popular cultural universe a deluge of Christian product. This is what would be required to really influence the culture at large.
One additional observation:
We are called to primarily transform the raw material of creation, not culture as such. This does not mean that we don't transform what we can, but this is not the foundational orientation that we should have. (This is a main point I make in my book.)
Dave,
Have you read JD Hunters take on this issue? He did a lecture years ago called "To change the world" that made a run through our community here in NYC in printed form. He makes a persuasive argument for the "top-down" perspective. I can send you a copy if you wish.
Anyway, my concerns on thinking it is only "bottom-up" is the shear magnitude of the task. If you think you need to convince a majority of individuals to your perspective in order to see change then there is a lot of work to do. This is also slightly problematic when you come across the places where Jesus mentions that wide is the way to destruction and narrow the way to salvation. He seems to possibly be referring to the number of individuals who may actually respond to the Gospel...or even in our case here the values of the Gospel. Could he mean that we will never get a majority? If so, it makes the "bottom-up" perspective seem impossible.
My issue with the "top-down" camp is, as has been pointed out, the lean towards elitism.
I guess this is why I am persuaded that both are needed in order to see real and sustained change. The human heart a twisted as it is seems to call for both methods.
Kirk
Contrats on your marriage, Kirk!
I don't think it is utterly impossible to use the top down approach. I mostly wonder if one can do it without compromise. Or consistently do it without compromise. I do believe that if one is presented with a "top level" opportunity, they boldly should seize it!
I need to blog - or maybe write - about this more. But first I need to think somemore about it.
Thank you, Dave. Sarah and I are both enjoying married life.
I'll send you Hunter's lecture to stir your gray matter. And please do blog more about it...definitely an area I want to discuss more.
Kirk
Commenting by HaloScan
