Take 3: An Evangelical Manifesto and a Covert Colonialism

At the risk of seeming more obnoxious than usual, our ongoing discussion of "An Evangelical Manifesto" has continued to percolate for me and so occasions a third post.  One other theme in particular perhaps warrants comment:

The opening paragraph of the Manifesto makes a bold claim: "we who sign this declaration do so as American leaders and members of one of the world's largest and fastest growing movements of the Christian faith: the Evangelicals."  This is very clearly intended to suggest that the exponential growth of Christianity in the majority world--what Jenkins hailed as "the next Christendom" and Lamin Sanneh names "world Christianity"--should be seen as, in fact, "Evangelical" Christianity.

I'm quite suspicious of what's latent in such a claim, for at least two reasons.  First, such claims often come from an identification of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity--which world Christianity overwhelmingly is--as a subset of "evangelical" Christianity.  If Pentecostal and charismatic spirituality is a version of "evangelical" spirituality, and such charismatic spirituality is exploding in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, then--according to this logic--"evangelical" Christianity is exploding around the world.  But it's the first premise that's the problem: while Pentecostal/charismatic spirituality (small-p "pentecostal" for short) certainly shares some of the aspects and ethos of revivalist evangelicalism, both pentecostal theologians and more carefully calibrated sociological descriptions rightly recognize significant and fundamental differences.  (I hinted at this in my First Things article, "Thinking in Tongues," though it needs more development and nuance.)  This opening claim in the Manifesto feels over-reaching, a bit of a greedy attempt for American Christians to set the terms under which non-Western forms of Christianity will be received and sifted (or at least a way of trying "get in on some of the action" so to speak, despite the fact that the middle claise malaise of North American evangelicalism is a helluva long way from Lagos).  But that, I'm afraid, is already loading the deck by imposing Western, and often uniquely American criteria, concerns, and debates onto the emerging Christianities in the majority world--which seems to me like a sure-fire way of mis-understanding what the Spirit is doing in Nigeria or Brazil. 

Second, and related to this last point, I worry that such a claim--that world Christianity is "evangelical" Christianity--will operate as a kind of covert colonialism, and way of continuing to maintain the hegemony of Western theological categories and debates by casting "our" label onto environs which might be quite immune, or otherwise uninterested, in the sorts of concerns that animate the Manifesto. (Notice the ambiguous grammar of that opening claim--"American leaders" of world Evangelicalism?  Hmmm...that's susceptible to a couple of different readings, isn't it?) But do the signatories expect that this document would have much relevance to Christians in Indonesia or Ghana?  (Or even England and the Netherlands?)

The reason I think it's important to be sensitive to this possibility of covert colonialism is precisely because American evangelicalism has become such a widely exported product--so that one finds Chinese Christians fretting about issues that perhaps make sense in Iowa but, in the bigger picture, seem like strange things to worry about in the context of the new China.  I'll be the first to admit that my international experience is rather limited, but in my travels I have been struck at just how powerful the American evangelical product is, and the ways in which it changes what it touches.  Take a rather banal example that's close to home:

During our sojourn here in England, though we've enjoyed communion and evensong at the cathedral, for family reasons we've made our church home at a very "low/free church" evangelical congregation.  And looking for fellowship and encouragement, my wife began attending a Ladies' Bible Study on Friday mornings.  (The "Ladies' Bible Study" being a quintessentially evangelical practice that sort of contradicts some of my earlier claims! ;-)  But my wife just couldn't bring herself to attend anymore once the group adopted an evangelism and apologetics curriculum called something like, "The Way of the Master," featuring Kirk Cameron!  The curriculum was based on videos of Cameron and his cronies preaching God's wrath and judgment on Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica (one of our favorite haunts, by the way, but not for the evangelism).  And Deanna found herself asking: how could these evangelistic strategies, born in still-overwhelmingly-religious America, which presume quite a bit of biblical literacy to even work, have any relevance to what witness should look like in deeply-secularized Britain?  You can imagine that this would get only stranger and stranger if Kirk Cameron starts (well, I'm sure he has) marketing his videos in Kenya, or even Amsterdam. 

What I mean to suggest is that American evangelicalism has become so universally exported that it's easy for us to become lazy and not realize that this is not because of a "universal" Gospel but because of a globalization of American culture.  And it's got Christians around the world fighting battles that aren't theirs.

One last remark along these lines, or at least in the ballpark of these issues: The framers of the Manifesto are at pains to emphasize a "theological" rather than a "sociological" definition of "Evangelical."  I've expressed my concerns with the former; but in fact, I wholeheartedly own up to the latter.  I'm both happily and grudgingly admit that I'm an "evangelical" in this quasi-sociological sense; I take this to be analogous to happly and grudgingly admitting to be Dutch (Grand Rapids folks will get the point).  Admittedly, things get fuzzy here, sort of "it takes one to know one."  But I (somewhat happily, somewhat grudgingly) concede that I'm "evangelical"  in a sociological sense--I know all the camp songs; I can sing along with Keith Green; I actually enjoy alot of "contemporary" worship music; I still pick up Christianity Today before I read First Things or the Christian Century; I've been to altar calls and a Billy Graham Crusade (and a Greg Laurie Crusade and...); etc., etc.  This is the sort of experience and formation that one just can't shake, and trumpeting a "theological" definition of "evangelical" that is problematic doesn't efface this still tangible experience of "growing up evangelical," as I think one book put it.

So who's afraid of a sociological definition of "evangelical?"  Why?  I'm generally pretty happy to embrace it--though there are all sorts of days I want to disown it.  But there's the rub: being "evangelical" is like a family affiliation that, despite all the weird uncles and meddling mothers, can't be just ignored or effaced--even when one might have theological desires to do so.  Indeed, perhaps being evangelical functions as a kind of ethnicity for white protestants who are jealous of the thick ethnic cultures of Mexican or Italian Catholics, or African-American Protestants--which might also explain why the non-white folks often find the "evangelical" moniker doesn't fit all that well. 

Comments

[shane magee]

i really like your sociological definition of evangelical james. i think it's helpful in discussions like this. i too see the covert colonialism implicit in public statements like this and think it is very unfortunate that there was little attempt to make the manifesto more representative of people of colour within the states and the nationalities without.

great post.

[Haven Perez]

Prof. Smith,

Ever since your Derrida class, I have John Calvin and William J. Seymour playing out scenes of the Odd Couple in the Manhattan Apartment that is my soul.

This tends to affect my politics and my theology.

I’ve been meeting with Pentecostals from Uganda and Venezuela, and as much as they love fellowshipping with the 700 Club that is my mother’s church, they are also quite aware of the damage many politically conservative white evangelical’s cause with their support of arms dealers and exploitive economic practices.

Again, there is a very strange relationship with militarism and American evangelicalism that is just as important as “protecting the unborn.”

[Haven Perez]

I think it’s formulated a bit differently, Prof. Smith, I think the Evangelical label is easily embraced by many folks of color. This is my point, about Evangelicalism being held by two columns.

One column is built, during the 1950s, Billy Graham and his successful attempt to form a trans-denominational alliance of theologically orthodox Protestants. It is within this alliance many Evangelicals of color found themselves comfortable with white Evangelicals. The other column was built, during the 1970s, by a coalition of Republican strategists and white Evangelical elites to create an ethno-religious political identity to provide a space for all conservative and reactionary whites who no longer felt at home in the Democratic Party. It is this second column designed for white right-wing ethno-religious political commitments (I am looking for a better word) that Evangelicals of colors seem awkward relating to. These are the two pillars of the modern Evangelical, and as such, Evangelicals of color will continue to find the political priorities of their white co-religionists incompatible with their own.

I mean, your lists of memories (Keith Green’s "The Sheep and the Goats" live, still gives me goose bumps, and side B of Songs For The Shepherd still takes my breath away) are mine as well, and I am Afro-Latino. I think the sticky aspect, for me, is the political role American Evangelicalism has taken. Even the theological fights are fun. However, once you start advancing economic theories which seems to abuse certain segments of the population while claiming to defend the unborn, or straightening out gay folks, it becomes a whole other matter. The relationship with the Republican Party has not saved many unborn babies, and homosexuality will soon be normative, however, the right-wing economic theories that certain Evangelical elites benefit from are getting preserved and advanced. And Lord knows the suffering Arab Christians and Muslims must get from hearing pre-trib, pre-millennial eschatologies defending and advancing political decision that hurt them.

I know it seems cynical, but here I am…

[Indecisive]

But Kirk Cameron has Ray Comfort (who is from New Zealand) at his side, so obviously he's going to have a global perspective...

What I find odd (well, *one* thing I find odd) about Cameron is that his methods, depending as they do on a great deal of biblical literacy and sympathy toward particular conceptions of God, only will work *in certain pockets* of the population even here in the US.

As for evangelical identity, I've for years wondered if I still was one (even though, as an active member of InterVarsity chapters for eleven straight years now, I certainly haven't run away from the sociological reality of evangelicalism), and I think I've made this concession: I'll consider myself an evangelical as long as it doesn't require support for Republicanism and doesn't require familiarity with anything currently on so-called Christian radio.

[Ted Olsen]

Jamie, it sounds like the Cameron video was picked by the English Anglican women? If so, then perhaps it is more relevant to the U.K. than you indicate. Speakers' Corner, perhaps, being even more conducive to hellfire-laced street evangelism than the Third Street Promenade. And given the enthusiasm I've seen for some pretty hard-core evangelism among my African, Asian, and Latino brothers and sisters, I wonder if Cameron might actually be more in tune with them than with contemporary American evangelicalism, which is trending toward "lifestyle evangelism" and indirect displays of the gospel.

Mr. Cameron may not be quite the "covert colonialist" or "crazy uncle" you think.

I agree that American evangelicals often wrongly assume that their own local challenges are global and universal ones, but those challenges are often, in fact, international. It's true that the evangelicalism of the majority world may not have feel quite so strongly the lingering effects of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and the postwar break with separationist fundamentalism. But my evangelical friends overseas are often eager for American evangelical leaders to take steps like this manifesto and explain how American evangelicals are and are not like the international media descriptions of the movement.

[Dan Wilt]

I look forward to reading the text and evaluating it's ebbs and flows.

[Luke Gelinas]

Wow, Jaime, an admission in print that you can sing along to Keith Green. You're a braver man than I!

[Luke Gelinas]

I've enjoyed following the discussion. I don't really have anything to add; I share Jaime's concerns pretty much wholesale.

I will say this: Didn't Cameron star in the Left Behind movies? I think that pretty much seals the 'crazy uncle' title, at least. No?

[Simon Ravenscroft]

"Jamie, it sounds like the Cameron video was picked by the English Anglican women? If so, then perhaps it is more relevant to the U.K. than you indicate."

As someone in his twenties who has grown up in the UK - in my experience, American Evangelical material is generally picked up by British churches simply because it is all that's on offer. There really is a dearth of up-to-date British teaching material, and the little that is available is much less polished than American alternatives. The UK is indeed deeply secularized.

Some American material is relevant in the British context, but certainly not all. I doubt whether the ladies group really asked this question either - when there are few alternatives one tends not to.

Oh, and the spectacle that is Speaker's Corner is something of a cultural anomaly - it is not repeated elsewhere in the UK.

[Will]

Interesting thoughts, Jamie. My initial reaction was quite similar to yours in all three of your posts, and I continue to have some concerns with this document. Having said that, I was also delighted at the thought that this might be a sign of a turning - call me a silly optimist.

One linguistic thought that was striking was the consistent use of the concept of "public square," as opposed to "public sphere." Not to be pedantic or geekily Habermasian, but a public square, with the image of a single speaker making a point and seeking a QED, resonates much less with the networked world in which we live than a public sphere, where we seek the formation of democratic will.

[Haven Perez]

I think the “covert colonial” idea is apt. When “Evangelicalism” used to be called “Protestantism” a much similar process was being experienced. Although the racist and out-right colonial domination of other nations included using Protestantism as a means to give metaphysical basis for the project, many believers of colors managed to reject its more seemly aspects while making the faith their own. Ravenscroft point that American Evangelicalism puts out more product, thus flooding the market, is much more pertinent than the truth claims within the product.

[Haven Perez]

Ravenscroft point that American Evangelicalism puts out more product, thus flooding the market, is much more pertinent than the truth claims within the product.

I apologize, Ravenscroft, rereading your statement, I may have read more into it then you meant.

[Simon Ravenscroft]

No problem. My point was more towards the vacuum left by a lack of suitable British material, rather than any 'flooding of the market' by Americans (which could imply an intentional / mildly aggressive business policy). In any case, the end result is the same - not much choice for us Brits!

[Max]

Howdy from Canada,

This whole manifesto piece is a bit of a head-scratcher to me also...and your post adds to the puzzlement. So thanks.

RE: British evangelism material - I've had positive experience with the imported Christianity Explored - via Rico Tice at All Souls. Sound, bible based gospel presentation. Fret not my UK brethern/sister-n(?)

RE: Speakers Corner/public square...it's a time-honored medium. Whitefield and Wesley cranked it so why not and by the way.. done correctly (law/grace) it does cause offence in the appropriate way. No one minds the buskers on the street, so why not a sincere, compassion-filled, clear, truthful verbal proclamation of "repent and believe"-which is not American Evangelicalism. The Holy Spirit is not limited by a "networked world" and faith does come by hearing, yes?

[Derek Flood]

I am currently in seminary at GTU which is a place that is quite hostile towards evangelicalism. Against that contrast I find myself forced to reflect what my own identity as an evangelical means. In many way is is similar to how when I lived abroad I was able to reflect on who I was as an American in a way I never could have before I left the States.

I agree that the sociological definition is much more normative than any theological one as far as what evangelicalism de facto is. Specifically I like the sociological definition mentioned earlier of 1) orthodox & orthoprax 2) crucicentric 3) biblicist 4) conversionist 5) missional 6) transdenominational. I was actually struck by how vague the manifesto was in fact in addressing these six characteristics. For example a conversion expereince is absolutely central in evangelicalism - Pentecostalism included. Yet I was hard pressed to recognize this being articulated in the document. If it is there at all, it is said "through the flowers". So as far as theology goes I found it pretty timid to the point of being unclear. I'm not sure if I read the document without knowing who it was describing theologically that I could have told you it was supposed to describe evangelical belief.

I did appreciate the parts on self reflection and call to reform. But as Dr. Smith says, I found that on the most important place to speak out - politics - it was too timid where it should have been prophetic. We have as evangelicals been increasingly captive to the culture of conservative politics and its love affair with materialism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism. What seems to be utterly lacking is teaching in the church about how to engage political and public life in a Christ-like way. What I hear from the pulpit is either unreflected capitalist idolatry or privatized faith.

What I would like to see is not so much abstract mathematical formulations of doctrines as I would theology that helps us to live more like Christ in our complex world, that helps us to interact in the public sphere with grace, that gives us new ways of approaching issues that go beyond the tunnel vision of our own cultures ways and values. WWJD theology. For example how about a way to engage politics that does not buy into the power games, slander, and media manipulation that characterize both left and right? Maybe that is what the manifesto was aiming for...

[Paul Miller]

Dear Prof. Smith,
Two comments on your wife's experience in the Bible Study with its cringe-worthy Americanized input - and I say this as an American who from 1975-88 lived for 13 years in England and who has the privilege to have spent 6 weeks of every year for the past 6 years there, and thus loves (or 'luvs') our British cousin - first, I wouldn't worry about the Brits being able to defend themselves against the American invasion. You won't need to do that job for them; it's one they themselves accomplish with relish. A refrain I heard ad nauseam was "that works in American; it won't work over here." When I saw American imports (our loud preaching style etc) crossing over into England, I only smiled indulgently. It simply won't fly there.
Second, we lived in a globalised world and these cross-over influences are inevitable (the problem is, people unreasonably think that cross-over influences moving from a minority culture (whether that minority status is racial or simply in the global media world)to a majority culture is somehow legitimate whereas the majority-to-minority direction is not; this is simply a prejudice); indeed, these influences are to be, and often are, embraced. For instance, on this month Evangelical Alliance of France website, I see that they not only celebrate Martin Luther King's legacy but actively promote it (see bottom reference), and he, should it be necessary to add, is an American! and America with its slavery history is not really parallel to the French history (as the French will be only too glad to tell you... "French fries" live forever!). In King they embrace, of course, an idea and a value but also a life projection; it's an idea incarnated... which is the point, and why cross-cultural influences are inevitable, and even good! You can't have incarnated idea and not also have the culture in which that incarnated individual lived and developed.
Yours,
Paul Miller

P.s. re. preaching in Santa Monica. I must confess to having been an open-air preacher first in Nottingham for a year and then seven years in London (Leicester Square, Portobello Mkt., Hyde Park corner... full of good times... and bad times). I don't do it now, but I didn't regret it then.

http://www.alliance-evangelique.org/accueil/index.html

[Larry]

...a bold claim: "we who sign this declaration do so as American leaders and members of one of the world's largest and fastest growing movements of the Christian faith: the Evangelicals."

not just a bold claim, but prideful. And are there "movements" in Christ's Church?