09/11/06
The prestigious Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), formally established in
1921, is one of the most
powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign (and even domestic)
policy. It, as well as the Royal Institute of International
Affairs in London,
came about as a result of a meeting on May 30,
1919, at the Hotel Majestic in Paris. Some of the fifty
participants were Edward M. House, Harold Temperley,
Lionel Curtis,
Lord Eustace Percy, Herbert Hoover,
Christian Herter,
and American academic historians James Thomson
Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Coolidge of Harvard and Charles Seymour
of Yale.
It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers,
professors, former CIA
members, elected politicians, and media
figures. And its journal of note is Foreign Affairs
magazine. While I do not subscribe to
some of the ‘interesting’ conspiracy theories surrounding the CFR, I do believe
it is at least **representative of**
of America’s leadership elite. We can
ascertain some of the mainstream thinking of America’s leadership elite by
reading the CFR’s journal. So the
recent headline article on religion in American politics should not be ignored.
The most recent headline article in the Foreign Affairs magazine
(available at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faessay85504/walter-russell-mead/god-s-country.html
) published by the Council on Foreign Relations, and written by CFR fellow
Walter Russell Mead, has these choice quotes:
"Like the Puritans,
many fundamentalists hold the bleak view that there is an absolute gap between
those few souls God has chosen to redeem and the many he has predestined to end
up in hell. Calvinists once labored to establish theocratic commonwealths -- in
Scotland by the Covenanters and the Kirk Party, in England during Oliver
Cromwell's ascendancy, and in New England, all during the seventeenth
century."
"Fundamentalists,
despite some increase in their numbers and political visibility, remain less
influential. This is partly because the pervasive optimism of the United States
continues to limit the appeal of ultra-Calvinist theology. Moreover, religious
politics in the United States remains a coalition sport -- one that a
fundamentalist theology, which continues to view Catholicism as an evil cult,
is ill equipped to play. To make matters more complicated, fundamentalists
themselves are torn between two incompatible political positions: a sullen
withdrawal from a damned world and an ambitious attempt to build a new Puritan
commonwealth."
"As used
here, the term "fundamentalist" involves three characteristics: a
high view of biblical authority and inspiration; a strong determination to
defend the historical Protestant faith against Roman Catholic and modernist, secular,
and non-Christian influence; and the conviction that believers should separate
themselves from the non-Christian world. Fundamentalists can be found
throughout conservative Protestant Christianity, and some denominations more
properly considered evangelical (such as the Southern Baptists and the Missouri
Synod Lutherans) have vocal minorities that could legitimately be called
fundamentalist. Fundamentalist denominations, such as the ultra-Calvinist
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, tend to be smaller than liberal and evangelical
ones. This is partly because fundamentalists prefer small, pure, and
doctrinally rigorous organizations to larger, more diverse ones."
"Evangelicals,
the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddle the divide
between fundamentalists and liberals. Their core beliefs share common roots
with fundamentalism, but their ideas about the world have been heavily
influenced by the optimism endemic to U.S. society. Although there is
considerable theological diversity within this group, in general it is informed
by the "soft Calvinism" of the sixteenth-century Dutch theologian
Jacobus Arminius, the thinking of English evangelists such as John Wesley (who
carried on the tradition of German Pietism), and, in the United States, the
experience of the eighteenth-century Great Awakening and subsequent religious
revivals."
My first impression of the contents of this
article was dismissive. I was struck by
the way the article twisted and changed definitions from their historical use.
Also, I was struck by some of its mis-characterizat
But the more I have had time to reflect upon the article, the more perceptive I
think it is. Terms and labels like
'fundamentalist' inevitably change with context. And more often than not, such
labels are used with political motives in mind. Even the label 'Christian' was
at one time used to derogatorily label a group of people. And given that
"Islamic fundamentalist" is often being used to describe Islamists
fighting the mainstream Western political model, we should not be surprised
that the 'fundamentalist' label would also be pinned on those perceived to be
the greatest threat to the modern Western political model. So I do not think we should be distracted
by the semantics of the article, but rather focus upon the article’s theses.
With that in mind, we should ask this question: are Calvinists that
"defend the historical Protestant faith against Roman Catholic and
modernist, secular, and non-Christian influence" and desire "a new
Puritan commonwealth" a threat to the modern Western political model?
On the other hand, are those of the ilk of "sixteenth-century Dutch
theologian Jacobus Arminius" and who make political confederacy across
religions not that threatening to the modern Western political model (and hence
not "deserving" the label of 'fundamentalist'
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Mead (the author of this article) in my answers
to these central questions implicitly raised in his article, even though I think
his use of the label ‘fundamentalist’ is rather sinister. Arminian and latitudinarian “evangelicals”
have been part of the coalition that has built the modern Western political
model which historic Calvinists oppose.
The former are no real threat to the modern Western political model,
whereas the latter are definitely so.
Yet despite this agreement on the answers to the
central questions, I object to the article’s failures, such as its failure to
mention that historic Calvinism employs and seeks Reformation and not
Revolution, something that cannot be said of liberals, secularists, Islamists,
Romanists, and Arminians and other latitudinarians. The latter parties have had to rely upon deceit and violence to
overthrow lawful governments in furtherance of their own power, whereas
historic Calvinists have relied upon truth and the preached word of God to
reform governments. Mr. Mead even hints
and admits that their tools to obtain and hold power have been rather unsavory
in these concluding words of his article: “As more evangelical leaders acquire firsthand experience in foreign
policy, they are likely to provide something now sadly lacking in the world of
U.S. foreign policy: a trusted group of experts, well versed in the nuances and
dilemmas of the international situation, who are able to persuade large numbers
of Americans to support the complex and counterintuitive policies that are
sometimes necessary in this wicked and frustrating -- or, dare one say it,
fallen -- world.” “Complex and
counterintuitive policies” are but Mr. Mead’s euphemisms.
Mr.
Mead’s article betrays his own concerns that historic Calvinism rests upon a
power far above the power that its opponents must rely upon. In order to see this, consider for a moment
how many people really meet these qualifications of his definition of
Protestant ‘fundamentalist’:
1.
“Calvinists”
2.
“Once labored to
establish theocratic commonwealths”
3.
Desire “a new Puritan
commonwealth.”
4.
Have “a high view of biblical authority and inspiration.”
5.
Have “a strong determination to defend the historical Protestant faith
against Roman Catholic and modernist, secular, and non-Christian influence.”
6.
Have “the conviction that believers should separate themselves from the
non-Christian world.”
7.
“Prefer small, pure, and
doctrinally rigorous organizations to larger, more diverse ones.”
8.
“Ill equipped to play” US
coalition politics, because their “theology…continues to view Catholicism as an
evil cult”.
Even
generously calculated, those meeting the above qualifications could not number
more than in the thousands. Compare
that with the roughly 300 million US population. And consider that this group does not have resort to the unsavory
tactics of their opponents, for the use of deceit and violence to overthrow
government and attain power are inimical to their Biblical principles. What sort of threat could such a group
really pose to the entrenched modern Western political model, considered in
merely human terms? Why is such a small
group even worth mentioning in an article such as this on religion in American
politics?
Up to
this point in time, historic Calvinists have been able to operate relatively
free of overt molestation in the US, and hopefully this condition will persist
for some time to come. But we should
know that we have caught the gaze of some men in high places, and we should not
imagine that it is a friendly gaze.