<underfire> Evangelical Internationalism

[John William Phillips]

Some further thoughts, to follow up on Melani's point below:
 
"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 attempts at reviving and reworking.)"

I think that two things are important here.  One is certainly, first, to affirm, insist even, that the parameters of justice should NOT be limited by categories or institutions of belonging; and if that means restricting the applicability of justice or reducing it to the human and the several continuously expanding or contracting concepts of the human, then at least that would be a beginning. The task would then include, paradoxically, continued resistance to the concept of the human.  

However, more important even than this must be, second, the demonstration that what is universal in justice (if this can ever mean anything at all) can never be set out absolutely, as if in advance of the event that calls for it, set out in its concept, written in some henceforth universally applicable law--and this despite laws that one might imagine, enlightenment style, that one would wish to render universal (though shalt not kill, etc.).  Justice must remain, in other words, impossible, at least in its concept, because if justice was absolutely coherent and thinkable then we'd have no need for it when injustices or antagonisms arose, which they do beyond all calculation and prediction, hence the universal call for justice.  

The call for a universal justice is as we know an inevitable call for the universal law and thus the power that is produced and mobilized in its name and all too often in the name of justice.  Justice, rather, might be better--more just--as a term that limits laws, that signifies the limits of both universal legislation and--no less tyrannical potentially--particular legislations, legislations that claim limited or restricted applicability.  In this sense, justice would be what, already inscribed in law, keeps law open to the future of antagonisms that we cannot yet imagine, that have not yet arisen. 

 The failure to universalize and universalization itself are but two sides of the same problem, coming up in one way or the other against the structural impossibility of the universal.  If there is a universal parameter for justice it is just this impossibility--the breaking down of the relation, the bond (in one etymology of the religio), as the possibility of the bond itself.  Which is to say that the impossibility of justice, far from being something we might weep over, is actually the best news we can hear today. 

John                 

 




________________________________

From: underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org on behalf of Melani McAlister
Sent: Sun 11/19/2006 2:30 AM
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
Subject: Re: <underfire> Evangelical Internationalism




John Williams 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

Melani McAlister
Associate Professor of American Studies
 and International Affairs
George Washington Univ.
mmc at gwu.edu

Mailing address:                Office location:
    2108 G. St. NW                       609 22nd St. NW
    Washington, DC 20052            Room 203  
    Main office: 202-994-6070       Direct: 994-6073
    fax: 202-994-8651


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Mercken <pmercken at wanadoo.nl>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: <underfire> Evangelical Internationalism
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org


> In the context the term appears to be a neologism, referring to the 
> western or (post)christian notion of globalization, as opposed to 
> that of say an African or Asian based world view. The reference to 
> the Roman as standing for the original christian (Saint Paul/Peter?) 
>
> makes this clear.
> It might help to try and break thought this ethnocentricity by 
> examining the place of compassion in other cultures (Allah as Rachman 
>
> for instance of further away compassion as the fundamental notion of 
>
> buddhism).
>
> Paul Mercken
>
>
>
> Op 14-nov-2006, om 20:49 heeft Krosrods Moarquech het volgende 
> geschreven:
>
> > John;
> >
> > Will you please write more about  "globalatinization"
> >
> > This is the first time I encounter this term and would like to know 
>
> > where it comes from, what it really means in order to further 
> > understand your point.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > raul
> >
> > John William Phillips <elljwp at nus.edu.sg> escribió:
> > Melani McAlister's post on evangelical internationalism has, I 
> > think, raised the stakes of the discussion somewhat and I'd like to 
>
> > remark (at this stage rather too briefly perhaps) on some of this. 
>
> > If, as Melani says, "the picture is far more complicated than is 
> > often acknowledged by those who see all evangelicals as trying to 
> > bring about Armageddon," then there are consequences that apply 
> > beyond the specific issues (of American evangelical politics) which 
>
> > should allow us to at least rediscover the connections between what 
>
> > we call globalization (or "globalatinization"), conflict, peace, 
> > religion and the question of any coherent notion of the secular. 
> > "Compassion" (the thing and its concept) has emerged in these 
> > discussions as a problem ("the difficulty," as Melani points out, 
> > "of finding a 'pure' act of compassion"); if so then this problem 
> > cannot be unconnected with the "evangelizing in all directions" 
> > that Melani refers to. The war on terror, the war in Iraq, the 
> > clash of civilizations: these designate the most evident, urgent, 
> > and evidently violent, concerns, yet we ought perhaps to be just as 
>
> > concerned with compassion, sympathy, tolerance, forgiveness, as 
> > modes of universalizing global language. When terms like this are 
> > evoked in order to solve a problem, to recover some lost "space" or 
>
> > "relation"--a redemption or cessation of some kind--then the 
> > possibility of the pure act of compassion is betrayed. It is 
> > inscribed within limits, subordinated to the purpose, normalised 
> > within measurable parameters. Moreover its simulation--or 
> > automatization--the ritualised action--gives rise to an unlimited 
> > global spread, the universalization of a norm.
> >
> > 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 
> > christinazation 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. The repeatability of (in this milieu) Christianized 
> > languages (which both advance and yet threaten the Roman thus 
> > causing further internal schizms) allows it to extend beyond any 
> > supposed institutional limits and thus already governs anything 
> > that we might regard as the secular. In what ways does the 
> > "secular," as we understand the concept and as it emerges from the 
>
> > Jewish, Christian, Muslim religions, become an issue in Korea, 
> > Japan, Thailand, China, Brazil, Africa? It becomes an issue, 
> > probably, in the terms inherited from those religions and now 
> > tending towards the universal in normalized (Christianized) 
> > language of global politics.
> >
> > John Phillips
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org on behalf of Melani 
> > McAlister
> > Sent: Mon 11/13/2006 6:13 AM
> > To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
> > Subject: Evangelical Internationalism
> >
> >
> >
> > November 13, 2006
> >
> >
> > My goal for this post is to lay out some thinking I've been doing 
> > lately about US evangelical Christians and their perceptions of the 
>
> > Middle East, which is the topic of my current research. In the book 
>
> > I'm working on, I argue that many observers, including most people 
>
> > on the left, have misunderstood the nature of American evangelical 
>
> > politics, in part because they misconstrue the nature and direction 
>
> > of evangelicals' interest in global issues, starting with Iraq and 
>
> > the Mid East, but also in Africa and elsewhere. The picture is far 
>
> > more complicated than is often acknowledged by those who see all 
> > evangelicals as trying to bring about Armageddon.
> >
> > Yesterday, the _Washington Post_ reported on the narrowing of the 
> > "God gap" between Republicans and Democrats in the United States, 
> > arguing that the Democrat wins last Tuesday could be traced, in 
> > part, to shifts among white evangelical Protestants: in this 
> > election, compared to the House races in 2004, the Democrats got 
> > 28% of the white evangelical vote. It wasn't a tremendous increase 
>
> > from 2 years ago, but it was something. And it does leave us with 
> > the reality that almost 30% of white American evangelicals voted 
> > Democratic. African American evangelical numbers were undoubtedly 
> > much, much higher. I'm not one to see voting for the Democratic 
> > party as the sign of great liberalism, much less liberation, and it 
>
> > certainly was not either for many who cast their ballots. But for 
> > those of us opposed to the Iraq war and the "war on terror," there 
>
> > are some genuinely positive changes going on among American 
> > evangelicals, including not only some changes in voting patterns, 
> > but also a d
> > ramatic increase in consciousness of global issues and increasing 
> > willingness to fight for certain global social justice issues (i.e. 
>
> > global poverty or environmentalism). But there is also among 
> > evangelicals a strong anti-Islamic strain that is actually 
> > accentuated and enabled by this globalization, and which positions 
>
> > evangelicals at the center of the deadly rhetoric and politics of 
> > the "clash of civilizations." (There are also evangelicals who are 
>
> > opposed to much of what I will trace below, who have positioned 
> > themselves in the forefront of "dialogue" with Muslims, although 
> > they are a minority. And of course, the "clash" rhetoric is not an 
>
> > evangelical invention; it is a secular concept, popularized by 
> > Samuel Huntington, and widely used as political shorthand.)
> >
> > Missionary work has been no small part of what I'll shorthand as 
> > the new evangelical internationalism, with the understanding that 
> > internationalism, like cosmopolitanism, is an ambiguous term. It's 
>
> > is important to note, however, that this "missionary work" no 
> > longer refers to an activity in which predominantly Western or 
> > Americans go off to unilaterally evangelize "native" peoples. 
> > Instead, with the rapid emergence what Philip Jenkins has called 
> > the "next Christendom" - the numerical and social ascendance of the 
>
> > churches of the global south-- the worlds' Christians evangelize in 
>
> > all directions. The United States remains the single largest 
> > "sending" country in the world, but South Korea, with its far 
> > smaller population, is second, and Nigeria, Brazil, and many others 
>
> > send large numbers of missionaries. (Well aware of, and often 
> > embracing, this globalization, US evangelical culture - through 
> > magazines, books, and even music video-- increasingly represents 
> > itself as impressivel
> > y and necessarily internationalist in its outlook. At a conference 
>
> > recently, one white evangelical man said something to me that would 
>
> > have been unimaginable even 10 years ago: "I can't help thinking 
> > about global issues," he insisted. "I'm part of a third world 
> > religious group." And it's true that evangelicals are quite active 
>
> > on issues they once avoided or opposed, like increasing US aid for 
>
> > Africa. Maybe this speaks to some of the debate about compassion 
> > that we've been having; and, as I hope this post indicates, the 
> > difficulty of finding a "pure" act of compassion.)
> >
> > But Islam has also been a central concern in new missionary work, 
> > and in the concomitant "looking outward" of American evangelicals. 
>
> > In the 1990s, global missionary work took on a new intensity when 
> > Argentinian evangelist Luis Bush founded the "AD2000 and Beyond" 
> > movement, which proclaimed as its goal "a church for every people 
> > and a gospel for every person by A.D. 2000." The movement's more 
> > specific target was the "10/40 Window," that is, the rectangular 
> > region on the world map between 10° and 40° north latitude, 
> > encompassing North Africa, most of the Middle East, and Southeast 
> > Asia. This, according to activists, was an area where Islam, 
> > Hinduism, and Buddhism "enslave" a majority of the inhabitants. Of 
>
> > these three religions, he argued Islam was of the greatest concern 
>
> > because it was "reaching out energetically to all parts of the 
> > globe; in a similar strategy, we must penetrate (its) heart with 
> > the liberating truth of the gospel."
> >
> > The AD2000 movement took off, and it included a commitment to 
> > proselytizing everywhere, including countries where proselytizing 
> > is illegal. And that has been the source of a great deal of tension 
>
> > on the ground - particularly when "outside" Christians, be they 
> > Americans in Sudan or Brazilians in Iran, come in and start 
> > evangelizing local populations. In many of those situations, local 
>
> > Christians are in fact discriminated against or suffer violence, 
> > and they are only more endangered with enthusiasts from elsewhere 
> > in the world show up to help. It should also be said that 
> > evangelical Christians -themselves- are very aware of this issue, 
> > as hotly contested debates in church magazines and missionary 
> > conferences attest; they are not ignorant of the problems, but 
> > disagree about what the strategies for addressing it should be. 
> > (Some of the participants in this discussion may be able to speak 
> > to specific situations better than I can. As part of my research, 
> > however, I have recently t
> > raveled to Cairo with a missionary group, and will go to Southern 
> > Sudan with another soon.)
> >
> > In the context of this missionary expansion, stories of persecuted 
>
> > Christians are everywhere. In emails and on websites, in 
> > fundraising DVDs or in sermons, American evangelicals hear stories 
>
> > of the sufferings of fellow believers - pastors imprisoned in 
> > China, new converts attacked in India or Egypt... story after 
> > story, and horrific images, all delivered straight to their inbox. 
>
> > It is crucial to say here that I absolutely support freedom of 
> > religion, and while the tensions between religious groups globally 
>
> > are obviously an enormous topic I can only mention here, I am 
> > deeply disturbed by what seems to be a decline in the "secular" 
> > spaces that allow religion to be practiced freely. But the question 
>
> > is how the struggle is waged, the terms of the debate. In the 
> > evangelical community, those tensions have led many American 
> > evangelicals, -along with Christians from around the world- to see 
>
> > themselves as -fundamentally- persecuted.
> >
> > In evangelical culture in the US, the vivid accounts of suffering 
> > have led to a common refrain that there is a kind of global 
> > conspiracy against Christianity. At the international level, that 
> > conspiracy is posited as being one of Islam against Christianity. 
> > Domestically, however, the idea of persecution has been enormously 
>
> > productive for American evangelicals, who see themselves as 
> > fighting against secularists as well as "radical Islam" (to use the 
>
> > somewhat disingenuous phrase that is common in the US). Drawing on 
>
> > the general, global sense of endangerment and embattlement, the 
> > idea of a "war against Christians" in the United States has been 
> > used by conservative evangelicals to present every defeat or 
> > setback to their agenda (i.e. the Ten Commandments in the 
> > courthouse) as an example of persecution.
> >
> > Let me end this overly long post, though, by pointing out that, 
> > whatever else it is, the world view encoded in the missions work 
> > and the focus on persecuted Christians, it is -not- a code for 
> > white power. The imagined geography here is -not- the West against 
>
> > the Rest (as Samuel Huntington famously put it). Instead, it posits 
>
> > a great multi-racial coalition of Christians around the world, 
> > Christians (mostly evangelicals) missionaries and the persecuted 
> > Christians who "confront Islam" in their own nations. Nations do 
> > not mark the fault lines of this clash; the imagined communities 
> > are in key ways transnational and global; they are made up of 
> > believers across the globe who see their alliances with each other 
>
> > as more central than national or regional identities. For American 
>
> > evangelicals, it might well mean that ties to American nationalism 
>
> > and even identifications with "Western civilization" are in 
> > competition with, and perhaps even/one day subservient to, a new 
> > kind of Christia
> > n globalism.
> >
> >
> > Melani McAlister
> > Associate Professor of American Studies
> > and International Affairs
> > George Washington Univ.
> > mmc at gwu.edu
> >
> > Mailing address: Office location:
> > 2108 G. St. NW 609 22nd St. NW
> > Washington, DC 20052 Room 203
> > Main office: 202-994-6070 Direct: 994-6073
> > fax: 202-994-8651
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Under Fire
> > 16 October - 10 December 2006
> > International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
> > all writings copyright individual authors
> > no commercial use without permission
> > to post a message, send an email to:
> > underfire at underfire.eyebeam..org
> > to unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Under Fire
> > 16 October - 10 December 2006
> > International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
> > all writings copyright individual authors
> > no commercial use without permission
> > to post a message, send an email to:
> > underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
> > to unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org
> >
> >
> > Do You Yahoo!? La mejor conexión a Internet y 2GB extra a tu correo 
>
> > por $100 al mes.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Under Fire 
> > 16 October - 10 December 2006
> > International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
> > all writings copyright individual authors
> > no commercial use without permission
> > to post a message, send an email to:
> > underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
> > to unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Under Fire 
> 16 October - 10 December 2006
> International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
> all writings copyright individual authors
> no commercial use without permission
> to post a message, send an email to:
> underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
> to unsubscribe, send an email to:underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org

_______________________________________________
Under Fire  http://underfire.eyebeam.org <http://underfire.eyebeam.org/> 
16 October - 10 December 2006
International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
all writings copyright individual authors
no commercial use without permission
to post a message, send an email to:
underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
to unsubscribe, send an email to:
underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org