Melani McAlister: RE: Evangelical Internationalism
John Williams Phillips wrote: A "pure" act: I wouldn't be surprised if the "difficulty" of finding the pure act turns out to be the difficulty. The evangelical international would not be "new" in the sense of an event or rupture that intervenes in the naturalised, or universalized modes of global discourse, if only because the Christianization of terms of compassion (forgiveness, tolerance, peace, sufferance) carries on quite independently of whether they are controlled by a Church or a religion in any of its evident forms.
In my view, this encapsulates the dilemma (or rather, one of the dilemmas) we've been discussing. While evangelical internationalism -is- new for American evangelicals, John is absolutely right that it is not new as a mode of connection, which in its expansiveness is both profound and potentially dangerous. Profound, in that the lived alternative to the globalizing of identity has been evangelical (and American) nationalism, in all its ignorance and arrogance. If middle Americans truly take in the view that people who are not American are, in fact, worthy of equal consideration, including the right to eat, the need for justice, the demand to be free, this is only to the good. However much these terms of understanding,in their universalism and their humanism, are problematic, it seems to me that they are also a necessary beginning: what would it possibly mean to say that the parameters of justice should NOT be all humanity? (This kind of humanism is, I believe, worthy of att empts at reviving and reworking.)
Some of the images I sent were meant to evoke the problems of "compassion" and the stunningly condescending and tourist mindsets it can enable. ("Bringing light to darkest Africa.") But (some) American evangelicals are as conscious as anyone of this; while they don't talk in the language of this discussion, I do hear a great deal of talk among evangelicals of the problems of their own "neo-colonial attitudes" toward Christians elsewhere; and at least some of them are wary of the American style of domination-through-generosity.
For me, the issue that haunts evangelical internationalism is precisely the failure to universalize their global visions. For decades, the Left has operated in terms of "solidarity," which operates as something of an alternative to "compassion." Solidarity is less about personal interaction or the promise of understanding; it is more the insistence that, as politcal actors, we imagine/demand commitments. In the face of a world divided by enormous dispartity of wealth and power, we choose sides. I always liked this, because it set some limits on the liberal tendency to just try to understand all sides -- so what if we know how everybody feels? We need to speak truth to power, act in the face of injustice.
The Problem is, this evangelical version is solidarity too: Christians choosing their solidarities as being with other Christians, with those their own "post-national" community. ()At this level, religion can work like race, though I am generally wary of those comparisons.) The real political work evangelicals do on concrete issues, like poverty, don't help just Christians, but they are part of a Christian-centric network, and a worldview that is NOT universalizing, desptie a rhetoric that is steeped in the Enlightenment language of humanism. In that sense, maybe John's point works in reverse too: it's not just that any use of concepts like tolerance has become Christianized, it's also that modern evangelical Christianity -- in the US and elsewhere -- can and does make partial and specific claims for solidarity in the language of the universal.
One related point: the role of faith-based organizations is crucial here, and -especially- internationally. One of the biggest changes that Bush has initiated is not the MONEY to such orgs; that's been around for a long time. It's the change in rules. It used to be that a religious group could, say, hold a medical clinic and hold religious services in a village, but the two activities had to be separated in time or in space. And they had to tell people that they weren't required to come to church in order to get services. Now, while they are still not allowed to limit their treatments or services to those who convert or attend or whatever, they are not required to TELL people that. So they are allowed to leave intact any perception that you have to pay for health care with church attendance, for example.
This is, in my view, one of the most significant changes in the rules, and it truly indicates the degree to which church-state divides are being broken down in the US. I'm not sure, as someone said, whether it is possible to have an entirely coherent concept of the secular. But I know that today we really are seeing billions of US govt. dollars spent to support services in Africa or Asia or elsewhere that may be indistinguishable from the proselytizing activities that accompany them. Not surprisingly, Christian groups have been noticeably favored over Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc., and evangelicals favored over Catholics or mainline Protestants.
This is the end of my week of "featured" posting, but I look forward to continuing the conversation.
> Melani McAlister
In my view, this encapsulates the dilemma (or rather, one of the dilemmas) we've been discussing. While evangelical internationalism -is- new for American evangelicals, John is absolutely right that it is not new as a mode of connection, which in its expansiveness is both profound and potentially dangerous. Profound, in that the lived alternative to the globalizing of identity has been evangelical (and American) nationalism, in all its ignorance and arrogance. If middle Americans truly take in the view that people who are not American are, in fact, worthy of equal consideration, including the right to eat, the need for justice, the demand to be free, this is only to the good. However much these terms of understanding,in their universalism and their humanism, are problematic, it seems to me that they are also a necessary beginning: what would it possibly mean to say that the parameters of justice should NOT be all humanity? (This kind of humanism is, I believe, worthy of att empts at reviving and reworking.)
Some of the images I sent were meant to evoke the problems of "compassion" and the stunningly condescending and tourist mindsets it can enable. ("Bringing light to darkest Africa.") But (some) American evangelicals are as conscious as anyone of this; while they don't talk in the language of this discussion, I do hear a great deal of talk among evangelicals of the problems of their own "neo-colonial attitudes" toward Christians elsewhere; and at least some of them are wary of the American style of domination-through-generosity.
For me, the issue that haunts evangelical internationalism is precisely the failure to universalize their global visions. For decades, the Left has operated in terms of "solidarity," which operates as something of an alternative to "compassion." Solidarity is less about personal interaction or the promise of understanding; it is more the insistence that, as politcal actors, we imagine/demand commitments. In the face of a world divided by enormous dispartity of wealth and power, we choose sides. I always liked this, because it set some limits on the liberal tendency to just try to understand all sides -- so what if we know how everybody feels? We need to speak truth to power, act in the face of injustice.
The Problem is, this evangelical version is solidarity too: Christians choosing their solidarities as being with other Christians, with those their own "post-national" community. ()At this level, religion can work like race, though I am generally wary of those comparisons.) The real political work evangelicals do on concrete issues, like poverty, don't help just Christians, but they are part of a Christian-centric network, and a worldview that is NOT universalizing, desptie a rhetoric that is steeped in the Enlightenment language of humanism. In that sense, maybe John's point works in reverse too: it's not just that any use of concepts like tolerance has become Christianized, it's also that modern evangelical Christianity -- in the US and elsewhere -- can and does make partial and specific claims for solidarity in the language of the universal.
One related point: the role of faith-based organizations is crucial here, and -especially- internationally. One of the biggest changes that Bush has initiated is not the MONEY to such orgs; that's been around for a long time. It's the change in rules. It used to be that a religious group could, say, hold a medical clinic and hold religious services in a village, but the two activities had to be separated in time or in space. And they had to tell people that they weren't required to come to church in order to get services. Now, while they are still not allowed to limit their treatments or services to those who convert or attend or whatever, they are not required to TELL people that. So they are allowed to leave intact any perception that you have to pay for health care with church attendance, for example.
This is, in my view, one of the most significant changes in the rules, and it truly indicates the degree to which church-state divides are being broken down in the US. I'm not sure, as someone said, whether it is possible to have an entirely coherent concept of the secular. But I know that today we really are seeing billions of US govt. dollars spent to support services in Africa or Asia or elsewhere that may be indistinguishable from the proselytizing activities that accompany them. Not surprisingly, Christian groups have been noticeably favored over Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc., and evangelicals favored over Catholics or mainline Protestants.
This is the end of my week of "featured" posting, but I look forward to continuing the conversation.
> Melani McAlister