America’s New Internationalists?:
Evangelical Transnational Activism
and U.S. Foreign Policy
Chan 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.