Boisi Center Interviews No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
the boisi center interviews no. 34: March 18, 2009 timothy samuel shah is adjunct senior fellow for religion and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and senior research scholar at the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs at Boston University. He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before his presentation on evangelicals and democracy at the Boisi Center. owens: There’s broad confusion among often used to refer to groups that are go back to this taken-for-granted status of Americans and others about the distinc- specifically anti-modern in some sense, religion, either by creating authoritative tion between the terms evangelical, Pen- politically or theologically. Peter Berger subcultures, like the Amish sealed off tecostal and fundamentalist. Could you has usefully defined fundamentalists as from everybody else, or imposing a kind speak a bit about how you use the terms people who want to restore the “tak- of authoritative religious superstructure and whether this confusion exists or mat- en-for-granted status” of religion. In oth- on society, like in Saudi Arabia. ters outside of the American context? owens: Do these terms carry the same shah: That’s a common source of con- freights abroad as they do in the U.S.? fusion. I use the term evangelicalism to shah: They don’t exactly, and this refer to those Protestants who are reviv- creates challenges. For example, in Latin alistic and biblicist. They have a belief in America, the term evangélico, which is personal conversion, they have a strong a literal translation of our term “evan- belief in the authority of the Bible and gelical,” doesn’t mean what we mean by they also believe in a kind of urgent duty evangelical or what I just said I meant to share the good news of Christ with by it. It really just means all Protestants. others through various means. I know actually a lot of countries in the Pentecostals, you could say are “evangeli- world where the term “evangelical” or cals plus.” They’re also evangelicals. They “evangelical church” really just means all believe those things I just mentioned. Protestants, not what we mean by more But in addition, they believe that it is an theologically conservative or revivalist essential mark of being a Christian to Protestants. So, that does pose challeng- have an infilling of the Holy Spirit, to es. be empowered by the Holy Spirit, to be owens: Going back a bit to Peter Berg- baptized in the Holy Spirit. Some Pen- er words, they want to restore the status er, who defines fundamentalism as an tecostals believe that as evidence of that, quo ante, the situation that existed in a urge to reclaim the status quo ante, could you have to speak in tongues, but not all variety of civilizations before the onset of the same be said about evangelicals in Pentecostals believe that. So, Pentecostals modernity, where people essentially took the sense of trying to restore Christiani- are “evangelicals plus,” sort of Spirit- for granted the veracity and the author- ty’s take-for-grantedness, though not the filled evangelicals. ity of the religious communities and forcefulness by which that is undertaken? traditions that they were raised in. There The meaning of “fundamentalists” is a was no kind of competitive pluralism; shah: This is challenging because I little bit less clear. It’s generally a term people just took for granted the truth think there are some evangelicals who I try to avoid because I think it doesn’t of their religious tradition. Berger says could be called fundamentalists. For have a lot of conceptual clarity to it. It’s fundamentalists are people who want to example, Bob Jones University is without 1 the boisi center interview: timothy samuel shah question a fundamentalist university. It’s make the entire society Christian in belief that you have to have a personal also evangelical. There are parts of Amer- some robust sense. conversion, you have to be born again. In ican evangelicalism and parts of world other words, people are not born Chris- There have been very few evangelicals evangelicalism that are fundamentalist. tians. They can’t inherit their faith from who have actually seriously entertained They think that there should be some ef- their parents or their church just because such projects and even fewer who have fort, either to create a kind of subculture perhaps they’ve been baptized in the made any political progress in actually that’s sealed off from the rest of society church. You can’t take for granted that advancing them. The one group that’s or to impose a kind of neo-Christendom you are a Christian. Evangelicalism in a often referred to in this context is the on society. But in every society that I’ve sense is an insistent call even to people group led by people who are more kind of looked at, the fundamentalist wing of who claim that they’re Christians: Are extreme Calvinists than evangelicals. R.J. evangelicalism is very much a minority. you really a Christian and have you really Rushdoony and Gary North were a group Most American evangelicals and most made that choice? that led a project with the wonderful evangelicals around the world do not To that extent, evangelicalism is an have this kind of fundamentalist aspira- almost perfectly modern, voluntaristic tion. faith that has a deep affinity with mo- owens: But if you believe in restoring “Modernity and dernity. It’s no accident that, historically Christianity’s taken-for-grantedness in speaking, evangelicals and modernity addition to the other tenets of evangeli- evangelicalism are essentially coextensive. There was no calism, you’re a fundamentalist? were born evangelical Christianity prior to the 17th century or the 16th century. Modernity shah: Yes, that’s right. In other words, and evangelicalism were born together, a fundamentalist evangelical would be an together, both both emphasizing choice over fate, volun- evangelical that’s fundamentally uncom- emphasizing taristic association over organic com- fortable with the kind of existential condi- munity. They’re both comfortable with tion of modernity where we have to make choice over fate, societies that are based on choice, based choices. We have to decide what religion on contracts freely entered into, based on we will be. No matter how strongly we voluntaristic the idea that associations are freely cho- ourselves are committed to our particular sen and they’re not just taken for granted. faith, there’s always that lurking sense association In all these ways, there are affinities. that I’m still making a choice, and an over organic uncertainty about what my children will owens: What do you see across the choose. Evangelicals generally accept this community.” world, particularly in the Global South, and are reasonably comfortable with it. which is the core of your most recent Fundamentalists are people who are not work, in terms of evangelically inclined comfortable with it, who really do want political actors? What’s the landscape name of Theonomic Reconstructionism, to somehow create conditions that are look like around the world? which was a serious theocratic project, essentially incompatible with modernity. but few evangelicals could tell you what shah: The landscape is very, very owens: Why do you think evangeli- theonomic reconstructionism is, much diverse. You mainly have three different cals in the United States are commonly, less actually got on board that particular patterns of evangelical political activism. though usually mistakenly, understood campaign. One is evangelicals creating their own to be theocrats? Is that view warranted political parties and expressly evangelical owens: Broadening the question a bit, historically? political movements, or they are creat- what kind of inherent relationship do ing “Christian” movements that when shah: In general, no. I think one of the you see between evangelicals or evangel- you dig beneath the surface really are striking findings in research I’ve done icalism and democratic movements or essentially evangelical. Another pattern both historically and on contemporary movements toward popular sovereignty? is evangelical church leaders not forming evangelicalism is that you have very few shah: I think there are a lot different their own political structures or parties cases of a theocratic program. This is kinds of affinities. One, I think there’s but very actively getting involved in party true in America and around the world. By just a deep affinity rooted in evangelical politics and endorsing politicians. Then theocracy, if one takes the term seriously, theology. As I said, one of the leading you have a third pattern of grassroots one means an imposition of a Christian characteristics of evangelicalism is the evangelical activism—a building up legal or political system on society to 2 the boisi center interview: timothy samuel shah of civil society organizations, creating NGOs, creating spaces where the poor and marginalized are empowered. So you have different kinds of patterns with different kinds of consequences for democratic politics. I would say the first pattern of the evangelical construction of political parties has been astonishing- ly incompetent and unsuccessful. The efforts to create evangelical parties or movements have, generally speaking, been a great failure. They haven’t gener- ated much evangelical support, let alone support of others. The second pattern, evangelical church leaders working with existing politi- cal parties, has been somewhat more shah: Those are great questions. Clear- In other words, Protestant communities successful. The Universal Church of the ly, there has been a demographic shift. are a kind of barometer in many coun- Kingdom of God in Brazil, for example, At the beginning of the 20th century, tries, as far as the West is concerned, for has been very sophisticated in building Protestantism was an almost exclusive- the state of religious and other kinds of relationships with existing political ly North Atlantic phenomenon.