| Home > Community Forum > The Evangelical Ethic and the Spirit of Neo-Imperialism « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
October 20, 2005
The Evangelical Ethic and the Spirit of Neo-Imperialism
by Jesus Politics
About a year ago, Hugh Urban wrote an insightful article examining the similarities between Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series and president Bush's foreign policy. His comparison remains relevant and hopefully will inspire others to study in more detail the links between our current government and the Christian Right.
Some quotes from Urban's article:
As a professor of comparative religion and cultural studies, I have long been fascinated by the strange intersections between religion, politics and popular culture. One of the most striking such intersections occurred to me this summer as I sat down to read the twelfth and last volume of the wildly popular Left Behind series by evangelical preacher Tim LaHaye and novelist Jerry Jenkins.
For those who haven't yet had a chance to read any of LaHaye and Jenkin's series, the story is basically an evangelical interpretation of the Book of Revelation set in the context of contemporary global politics: the Rapture has taken place, the Antichrist has taken control of the U.N. and created a single global economy, while a small group of American-led believers battles the forces of evil in a showdown in Jerusalem.
At the same time that I was immersed in this entertaining mixture of Stephen King-esque thrills and fundamentalist rhetoric, I had also been reading much of the recent literature on the Neoconservative movement and its powerful role in the Bush administration. As Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke have persuasively argued in their recent study, America Alone, the election of George W. Bush and the confusion following 9/11 allowed a small but radical group of intellectuals to seize the reins of U.S. foreign policy. Led by figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the members of the Project for a New American Century, the Neocons have been able to put into effect a long-held plan for asserting a U.S. global hegemony, in large part by dominating the Middle East and its oil resources.
The two narratives that I was reading here -- the Neocon's aggressive foreign policy, centered around the Middle East, and the Christian evangelical story of the immanent return of Christ in the Holy Land-- struck me as weirdly similar and disturbingly parallel. The former openly advocates a "New American Century" and a "benevolent hegemony" of the globe by U.S. power, inaugurated by the invasion of Iraq, while the latter predicts a New Millennium of divine rule ushered in by apocalyptic war, first in Babylon and then in Jerusalem.
So what are we to make of the strange parallels between this popular series of evangelical fiction and this aggressive Neoconservative strategy for American hegemony? On the one hand, we have the wondrous vision of a New Millennium established after a small American-led group fights against the global forces of the Antichrist in the Holy Land; on the other, we have the bold vision of a New American Century established after American unilateral military force defeats the Axis of Evil and asserts its benevolent hegemony in the Middle East. But how are these two narratives related? Is it a plot hatched secretly in one of LaHaye's Council for National Policy meetings? A coded message woven subliminally into the Left Behind books themselves?
Probably not. Instead, I think this connection is not so much an explicit or even necessarily intentional link, but rather a subtle yet powerful kind of "elective affinity," in Weber's sense of the phrase. As Weber argued in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it is not simply the case that Protestant Christianity caused the rise of early modern capitalism, or vice-versa. Rather, the two shared an affinity that was mutually beneficial and reinforcing.
So too, I would suggest, there is a fit or affinity between the evangelical vision of the New Millennium and the Neoconservative ideal of a New American Century. Updating Weber somewhat, we might call this affinity "the Evangelical Ethic and the Spirit of Neo-Imperialism." The Neocons and the Christian Right may not be conspiring together secretly behind the scenes; but they do need each other to promote their respective agendas, and they do have enough similar interests to find common ground in the Prodigal Son, George W. As a relatively empty, unformed "floating signifier," Bush serves as the key link in this elective affinity, the point at which the otherwise conflicting interests of the Neocons and the evangelicals come together in a disturbingly powerful way.
Posted by Jesus Politics at October 20, 2005 11:00 PM
Comments
However, large amounts of the fundamentalist base is voting against thier own economic self interest to support this affinity in foriegn politics. They're also voting against what I see as as the most important tenants of Christianity: care for the poor and oppressed, and the radical equality of all people.
Affinity? Maybe on this one issue, and maybe on one or two others, but by and large, the neo-cons are not serving the desires of the fundamentalists. Sooner or later, fundamentalists are going to wonder why no forward motion has been made in the drive to ban abortion, for the FMA, and other parts of their radical social-stratification agenda.
Posted by: John G at October 20, 2005 03:47 PM
"Elective affinity" is an appropriate description. However, there is a critical factor that is missing from the analysis: Israel. The stated objective of many neocons can be interpreted on a broad scale for creating a U.S. global hegemony, but a significant factor in the objective or motivation is also peace for Israel. Not just 'any' peace, like the Oslo accords which contemplate trading land for peace, but "peace through strength." http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm The neocon 'message' was crafted to ensure those who supported missile defense and/or a strong military in the United States would support the plan in Israel as well.
The peace through strength approach is one area where the religious right and neocons have a strong symbiotic relationship. One of the neocon goals is to establish an American embasy in Israel in Jerusalem, which Israel controls following the 1967 Six Day war. Since Jerusalem has spiritual importance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, this remains a point of contention. Many on the religious right do not believe that the second coming can occur until the temple of Jerusalem is rebuilt. Pat Robertson favors the 'peace through strength' approach since he sees Israel's control of the city as fulfillment of prophesy. Pat Robertson preaches that trading land for peace (i.e. returning portions of the city to Palestinians) "could" put the US at cross purposes with God. http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/speechreaction.asp
Every year, he leads a group of "Christian Zionists" to Israel. http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/speechreaction.asp Its as if we humans control if or when God returns. In many ways, the religious right adopts a form of godliness, but denies the power of God. II Tim. 3:5.
Nevertheless, Israel and the second coming are two factors that lead to the "elective affinity."
Posted by: r.johnson at October 20, 2005 06:07 PM
I've been wondering if I was the only one thinking about these parallels. Thanks.
The "happy accident" from following the Christian Right/Neocon/Tim LaHaye script for the future is that it frees them all up to focus primarily on short-term profit motives. Here's what I mean.
If you believe that the apocalyptic battle in the Middle East is part of God's plan, why not start a war with no exit plan, and no plans to spend the money and time necessary to rebuild the country you attack in ways other than those that maximize corporate profits for your friends? If it's God's will, the battle will come and you've been an instrument of His will. If it isn't in God's will for that battle to occur, then it won't no matter how incendiary your policies are.
We keep using words like "incompetent" and "mistake" to describe the administration's policies in both war and rebuilding. Isn't it possible that this "end times" story they believe in means that they may have intended to short-change the process, trusting in God to save the world while they are able to profit from "subduing" it?
$0.02,
Chuck
Posted by: Chuck at October 20, 2005 07:42 PM
It would be interesting to see how the neo-con's opinion of Israel would have changed if Iraq had gone according to their plans, ie our troops were greeted with hugs and flowers. The main reason for neo-cons to like Israel is that its a democracy in the Middle East. Israel would take a back seat to Iraq in the new US Middle East policy if Iraq had turned into the perfect democratic puppet to the US. After all, Israel has no oil, and years of friendship don't mean much to the neo-cons, who went from giving chemical weapons to Saddaam to now trying him for using them.
Posted by: John G at October 21, 2005 01:12 AM
Chuck,
To further your point, "Evangelical Christians on Thursday criticized efforts by some Christian groups to divest from companies associated with Israel and said they planned to counter with a campaign of their own to create partnerships between Israel and international businesses." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/636519.html
Posted by: r.johnson at October 21, 2005 05:00 PM
My Inaugural Address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman
Your jaw will drop!
Posted by: Secret Rapture at February 17, 2006 03:58 PM
