We see many Christian references during the Capitol riots of Jan 6 and many wonder if conspiracy theories and political upheaval in United States at least partly rooted in Christian evangelical theology. In this article, we explore the role of theology in defining the logical conclusion of the rabbit hole that conspiracy theorists find themselves in.
First, I have to declare that I identify as a Catholic and so may not be the most objective of parties if my opinions sound sectarian but I try to leave my personal beliefs out of this little dissertation. In this article, evangelism is treated as separate from mainstream Protestantism even though I recognise the two identities are often adopted by the same person. Neither am I saying the evangelical worldview is monolithically uniform. Much like most thinking in human society, it is incredibly diverse, multi-faceted and interacts with the world differently in different fields. Similarly, conspiracy theorists exist within a spectrum from those who may consider the plausibility of only one theory to those who with a affinity, nay addiction, with any idea suspicious of establishment thinking and I recognise too that not everyone whom we consider a conspiracy theorist would identify as one. It would be a disservice to evangelism in particular and the wider Christian community as a whole, of which I am a member, to conflate everyone who identify as an evangelical with a propensity for some or all of conspiracy thinking.
Human society is just too complex for easy categorisation no matter how much students and observers of sociology may try. We can only hope to identify some of the many social forces that act in varying degrees on a particular individual with a particular persuasion on a particular issue. It is not my intention to apply a broad brush to describe wide swathes of human society but to identify some possible origin of the worldview of an individual which can be the starting point for understanding of that particular worldview.
With this clarification, we can perhaps start.
Christian background in America's origins
To start at the very beginning, the first English settlements in America were seen as another part of a conflict with Spain. While these early settlements failed, they were really in a sense partly driven by religious considerations as Protestant England under Elizabeth seeks to outflank the Catholic Spanish incursions into North America, which at that time had reached modern day Florida. In some ways, the Protestant English settlements built on their experience in colonising Catholic Ireland, creating a link to shared oppression experience with Native Americans for Irish-Americans long before their arrival after the potato famine.With the freedom to pursue their religion to their logical conclusion, some Protestants soon interpreted their religion in more Protestant terms, with some describing themselves as 'militant Protestants' and became the forerunner of today's evangelicals. Having said that, the first of America's religious revivals, which sweeps the country regularly, was more rationalist in nature, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and science, very unlike how a religious revival would be seen today.
Evangelical theology and antithesis to scholarship
Much of Protestant theology (even with a nod to the diversity in Protestant thinking) is a rather revivalism in nature and very much based on the Bible as the sole source of revelation, rejecting the Church as the intermediary in an individual's interactions with God.
In going back to the Bible, Luther justified his rejection of the authority of the Church by a Scriptural verse that stated that we are justified by faith. I often encountered evangelical writings, though, that extended this verse to being justified by faith alone. Catholic doctrine is that scriptures need to be understood under guidance of Church teachings known as traditions - not the ‘old practices’ type but teachings handed down from the Apostles. Thus, to read the Bible and to teach Catholic teachings, the Church has built up an entire edifice of scholarship of ever-growing complexity, with lots of reference to writings of early Church fathers. With all that scholarship comes the interpretative role that Luther eschewed.
This belief in justification by faith alone means that you get to heaven through your own faith and efforts, not by relying on learning (rejection of scholars) and professionals (rejection of priests as intermediaries). This is why so much of American culture - evident in Hollywood - vaunts the person with little or no training triumphing over experts with their long training. I find its epitome, or nadir, in the film Armageddon that is based on the premise that it is easier to teach miners to fly spacecrafts than to teach an astronaut to drill holes.
The rejection of scholarship, and also accepted facts by conspiracy theorists, makes it futile to appeal to the logic of more accepted arguments. Rational arguments are viewed with suspicions by those with an instinctive revulsion of scholarship while those more religious will see the hand of the Devil in arguments trying to dissuade them from the divine truth. It is no coincidence that evangelicals are proportionately more among the ranks of conspiracy theorists, be they in the Capitol insurrection or in the Flat Earth Society.
Catholic acceptance into American establishment
This story encountered a twist of late. Catholics tend to be excluded from American halls of power dominated by WASPs. A Catholic candidate of the Democratic Party lost the presidential election in the 1920s because of his Catholicism. JFK won in spite of his Catholicism not because - he famously had to declare that the pope did not determine his policies. In the 1980s with the advent of John Paul II and Reagan, evangelicals began to realise that they have a lot in common with Catholics in their stance against abortion and homosexuality etc. Not having their own scholarship that can provide coherent rational-based (as opposed to religious-based) arguments to the public, evangelicals began to reach out to Catholics with their tradition of scholarship to provide the needed arguments in their battle for public opinion.Danger of religious justification for political action
It should not be an issue for an individual's religious conviction to influence their political choices. After all, most political decisions are about moral priorities and propagation of moral truths are often where religions are supposed to excel. But any political action has to operate within the scope of acceptable legal and social norms of the wider society. Any conflict should be settled using the institutions of the society in which the individual resides and the religion operates. Otherwise, the social contract unravels. If an individual subjugate their rights & responsibilities to society to their rights & responsibilities to their religion, the individual cannot be enjoying all the rights of the society any more than a person holding another passport (ie., having an alternative loyalty) have less than full rights in our country.
If this is coupled with a belief that a political position is required by God, who mandates action to realise that requirement, society would be threatened if individuals undermine society's institutions to further that religious mandate. Often, this appeal to that higher mandate means that the ends justify the means. We can see the disregard of democratic norms in some places where voter suppression, gerrymandering and other tools were deployed as parties seek to maintain themselves in power in defiance of the will of the majority, sometimes to remould a better society in the image of their ostensible religious values.
No comments:
Post a Comment