Evangelicals and Political Leadership in the Third World

Evangelicalism is being put to an immense variety of political uses across the globe. That is not surprising when one considers the history of Christianity in general. Evangelical religion means different things to different people. It holds different positions in the social and religious fields of each country and varies from church to church. The reality of Third World evangelicalism is that the social location of the churches has been very determinant, constraining political possibilities and affecting political behavior.

But there are common denominators. First, we are talking generally about evangelical communities that have grown rapidly in recent years. They are not old, well-established groups with strong institutions and traditions. Second, they are situated in poor countries and are often mostly the poor from those countries; evangelicalism is largely a religion of the Third World poor. So their cultural and educational resources are limited. Third, evangelicals are usually divided into many churches, so it is impossible to establish a normative "social doc-trine" among them. Fourth, they operate in a religious market situation, so they are in competition for members and resources, and this does not encourage deep thinking or ethical teaching or self-denying politics. Fifth, they often do not have many international contacts and are cut off from the history of Christian reflection on politics. Sixth, they live in social contexts which are the product of increasing differentiation, which opens up space for them but also means they are often religious minorities with little political legitimacy (especially in Asia and, to some extent, Latin America). Seventh, the global context is the end of the Cold War, the onward march of global capitalism under neoliberal auspices, and the "third wave" of democratization.

The Ethical Challenge

The great challenge today in Third World evangelicalism is an ethical challenge. Not that ethical problems did not exist before, but they did not appear so prominently. Now, our deficiencies are projected onto a giant screen. The scandals and absurdities are not basically individual problems. They are deficiencies of teaching and of models of leadership. The evangelical politicians are not an aberration; they are the face of the church we do not want to see. Romans 12 speaks of the transformation of the mind as the basis for a non-conformist Christian ethic. But when there is no teaching we fall prey to conformity. And many churches do not teach ethical principles but only casuistic rules. Yet when the legalist who depends on rules enters a sphere for which his church has not elaborated rules, he becomes liter-ally unruly. That is one reason why many evangelical politicians become corrupt: they are legalists and therefore people without principles. Like the Pharisees in Luke 16:14, they are "friends of money."

Another factor is that, like many minority groups with a strong sense of mission, evangelicals are fascinated with the idea of converting power. Power is understood as a person, not as a system. We have a weak theology of sin, which is why we are messianic. We dream of converting the person in power, or of putting one of ours there, rather than operating with the traditional Protestant recognition that we are all sinners in need of a sys-tem of mutual accountability to control one another. That is why democracy is so important. But amongst many Third World evangelicals, the concern for democracy is reduced to religious freedom, which is something that interests us. So we show our collective egotism, because there can be religious freedom without democracy but not democracy without religious freedom. Aware-ness of the dark side of power will prevent us from imagining we can exercise power in the name of God.

Linked to this is the question of the specificity of politics. One of the evangelical members of the Constituent Assembly in Brazil said, "everything that is praised in the Bible should be prescribed, everything that is condemned should be pro-scribed." Really? Not even in Israel were there laws for everything God ordered or condemned. The Bible does not exist to substitute for the creative elaboration of forms of social organization. Political morality is specific; it has to do with the action of governments. It is not enough to know that certain behavior is wrong; we need to know whether it constitutes matter for legislation (political work) or for evangelism and teaching (cultural work).

The Case of Brazil

I believe the heart of the matter is the absence of the Protestant ethic in huge swathes of Third World evangelicalism. In Brazil, many nonevangelicals used to think it would be a good thing for Brazilian politics when the evangelicals were sufficiently numerous to make an impact in politics. They do not think that any longer. By Protestant ethic I am referring to three things. The first is the vision that biblical revelation has to do with all areas of life: that Christ is the transformer of culture, that structures, and not only people, are corrupt and in need of reform, and that the Word of God, and not the institutional church, has authority in the public sphere. The second thing is the classical attitude of diligent work and frugal living, of seeing secular life as a sphere for fulfilling God's will. The third is the biblical worldview that impelled the unfolding of modern science, a view of the world as the home of humankind and open to our creative and responsible action.

In many evangelical circles in the Third World today, instead of the ethic of social transformation we have the triumphalism that dreams of taking power. Instead of the ethic of diligent work and frugal living, we have the prosperity gospel of enrichment through ritual means. And instead of the biblical worldview, we have the current concept of spiritual warfare that is a return to a pagan view of the world, preaching ritualistic solutions for problems that should be faced ethically.

A few phrases from Brazil will show how far we are from the Protestant ethic. The leader of one of the largest denominations says: "As spiritual beings, born again, we are the 'cream of society'." "Only the elect of God should occupy the key posts in the nation," says a leader of the Assemblies of God. It is hard for the sect to imagine any other political role for itself. It must either be indifferent or be in charge.

Another example is the phrase of a young televangelist from a business family, who is now a member of congress: "if we evangelicals are one day going to literally dominate on earth, why can't we start taking power now, as a foretaste?" This divine right to govern is linked to theological concepts of "spiritual warfare," a strongly dualistic worldview. "The social, political and economic chaos is due to spiritual curses resting on our country [idolatry, spiritism] . . . . The transformation of Brazil will begin with spiritual restoration.... God is raising up men full of the Spirit to take over the positions of power."

We should be suspicious of all vanguards, Marxist or evangelical! Theologically, we confuse the imperative with the indicative, which leads to triumphalism. We should be the salt of the earth, but are we? We can't presume we are just because we carry the evangelical label. The doctrine of common grace teaches us that, just because we are Christians, it doesn't mean we have privileged knowledge of social reality.

Another phrase is from an evangelical congressman, who received a con-cession for a radio station from the government in exchange for having voted an extra year onto then president Sarney's mandate. "If Sarney wanted a mandate of 100 years in exchange for 100 radio stations, as long as it was to preach the gospel I would vote for it." This is the classic recipe of politics placed at the service of ecclesiastical expansion, one the Catholic Church used for centuries. In Brazil, the rise of a large evangelical community has brought many benefits to the country, but the entry into politics of some denominational leaderships has not. We need a vision of what the evangelical presence in society could be: altruistic, without an inferiority complex or a superiority complex; neither a marginalized minority nor an enlightened vanguard, but a transformative minority. A community not trying just to place "one of our people" at the top, but working to invest in the long haul of changing evangelical political culture.