America’s New Internationalists?: Evangelical Transnational Activism

and U.S. Foreign PolicyChan Woong Shin

Division of Social Sciences

Research Background Previously known for their domestic social and

political activism, American evangelicals have increasingly been involved in international issues such as: Religious freedom Genocide/reconciliation Poverty Human trafficking HIV/AIDS Global warming

“The New Internationalists” “Yet all in all, we should welcome this new

constituency for foreign affairs in Middle America. Just look at AIDS funding: With bleeding-heart evangelicals like Mr. Graham pressing hard, Congressional Republicans are suddenly scrambling to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional money to fight AIDS in Africa. Even Jesse Helms is joining in, and that's pretty much proof of divine intervention” (Nicholas Kristof, “Following God Abroad,” 2002).

Research Questions Q1: How have American evangelicals come to

recover social action in general as an essential part of their foreign missions?

Q2: How do evangelical activists address specific transnational issues? Is there anything distinctively “evangelical” about their approach to it?

I answer them by looking at evangelical transnational activism at three different yet related levels: Missionary discourse Organizational practice Advocacy campaigns

Existing Perspectives “Evangelicals are mere agents of American

imperialism” (imperialist view) “Evangelical transnational activism is simply

an extension of its domestic counterpart” (culture wars view)

Argument Transnational activists are “rooted

cosmopolitans” (transnationalist view) Activists define and legitimate activism;

religious beliefs are not static and monolithic (constructivist view)

“The Old Internationalists”

The Modernist-Fundamentalist Divide “Evangelicals are…convinced that the

preaching of the Gospel is the essential task of missions and must always remain so. They do not object to programs for the solution of agricultural, social, political and industrial problems, but they believe that each country, race and generation must solve its own problems in the light of God’s Word through the native churches. Their chief aim is the personal conversion of men to a new life in Christ, to complete surrender to God’s will as revealed in His Word and to new relations of love to their fellowman” (Murch 1956, 97-98).

History of Global Evangelical Mission Conferences

World Congress on Evangelism(Berlin, 1966)

International Congress on World Evangelization

(Lausanne, 1974)

Consultation on the Relationship between Evangelism and Social Responsibility

(Grand Rapids, 1982)

Consultation on the Church in Response to Human Need

(Wheaton, 1983)

Berlin, 1966

“If the Church went back to its main task of proclaiming the Gospel and getting people converted to Christ, it would have a far greater impact on the social, moral, and psychological needs of men than it could achieve through any other thing it could possibly do…”

- Billy Graham

Lausanne, 1974

“…we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty.

“In the church’s mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary.”

- The Lausanne Covenant

Grand Rapids, 1982

“The choice [between evangelism and social responsibility], we believe, is largely conceptual. In practice, as in the public ministry of Jesus, the two are inseparable, at least in open societies…”

- Evangelism and Social Responsibility: An Evangelical Commitment

Wheaton, 1983

“Even though we may believe that our calling is only to proclaim the Gospel and not get involved in political and other actions, our very non-involvement lends tacit support to the existing order. There is no escape: either we challenge the evil structures of society or we support them.”

- Transformation: The Church in Response to Human Need

Three Evangelical Views of Mission Mission as evangelism Mission as service Mission as transformation They differ in two regards:

The relationship between evangelism and social action

The nature and extent of social action

Mission as Evangelism

“Individual salvation through evangelism and conversion is the ultimate mission of the church.”

Yet this view does not lack a theory of social change

It is the belief that genuine social change is only possible through changing individuals

Scholars have argued that this view leads to individualistic social ethics

Evangelical Individualism primacy of personal morality over social

morality, social change as a by-product of individual change through conversion, and an overwhelming emphasis on economic and political freedom (Hollinger 1983)

primacy of the spiritual realm, the dual nature of Christian citizenship, the imperative of human dignity, the priority of individual responsibility, and the need for a limited state (Amstutz 2013)

“soulcraft as statecraft” (Shah 2009) Puritanism vs. the Social Gospel (Morone

2003) Direct causation vs. systemic causation

(Lakoff 2006)

Mission as Service

Social action is also part of Christian mission, but evangelism is primary

Social mission should be limited to “acts of compassion”

Political involvement can be distracting and potentially dangerous

Mission as Transformation

Evangelism and social action are “inseparable” partners in Christian mission

Christian social action should go beyond providing emergency relief; unjust rules and structures must be challenged and changed through political reform and advocacy

Evangelicals and Religious Persecution Evangelicals have long been concerned about

their persecuted coreligionists abroad During the Cold War, it was one important

reason for evangelical anticommunism In 1998, evangelical mobilization led to the

passage of International Religious Freedom Act Office of International Religious Freedom at the

State Department Commission on International Religious Freedom Each agency publishes its own annual

international religious freedom report “countries of particular concern”

Cold War and Religious Persecution Despite their strong anticommunism,

evangelicals were divided over the nature of persecution and proper response to it (Soviet Union and Nicaragua)

Still the two cases show common themes: tendency to separate the religious and the secular emphasis on spiritual mission over social action suspicion of too close a relationship between the

church and the state

Missions versus Human Rights Isn’t persecution unavoidable? Doesn’t it lead to the growth of the church? Are the ideas and language of human rights

biblical? Does public advocacy against a country help

or hurt missionary work?

Missions versus Human Rights “We should realize that the Great Commission

is dwarfed and even maligned if one implies that God is blindly tolerant of social and structural evil, that he forgives sinners independently of a concern for justice.“Furthermore, promoting the human rights of religious liberty…can encourage others to hear the evangel as good news. Religious freedom allows the evangelist to invite his hearers to a responsible, as opposed to a coerced, choice” (Carl Henry 1992)

Confrontation versus Engagement Naming, shaming, punishing vs. quiet

diplomacy Commission vs. State Department Outsider advocacy vs. insider advocacy

Saving individuals versus Changing Structure Religious freedom is more than a human

rights issue; it is also a national and international security issue

“Instead of getting people out of jail who had been imprisoned for their religious beliefs, could the culture and structures of persecution gradually be transformed toward an environment of sustainable religious freedom, so that people didn’t go to jail in the first place?” (Seiple 2012)

What if regime change and democratization lead to more persecution of Christians?

Individualistic Tendencies individualistic notion of religion emphasis on religious freedom over other

human rights moralistic view of countries distrust in governments of both the U.S. and

persecuting countries, emphasis on saving individuals over

promoting long-term, structural changes

Conclusion Evangelical transnational engagement is

neither a case of imperialism nor an extension of domestic culture wars

There is no single, coherent evangelical political ideology; individualistic tendencies exists, but they coexist with structural arguments.