Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Politics of the Spirit

The Politics of the Spirit: The Political Implications of Pentecostalized Religion in Costa Rica and Guatemala
by Timothy Steigenga
Lexington Books (2001)

“Latin America is currently experiencing a massive religious transformation.” (1) That is how the author starts out this book, and in the following chapters he outlines the data and several stories behind the movement from Catholicism to Protestantism in a region that had been extremely adverse to such a shift in the past four centuries. The reason that this is such an important shift is that the influence of Protestantism has also facilitated a renewed interest in Latin America around the ideas of democracy and capitalism. Strong components of both democracy and capitalism are important features of many countries seeking to move up in the new twenty-first century era most commonly characterized by the forces of globalization. The author notes that “Protestantism is particularly important because it is a movement primarily of the poor in a region plagued by poverty.” (3) The issues explored are the tension between Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences in data between religious subgroups in Latin America, religion and politics in both Guatemala and Costa Rica, and religion and gender relations in both countries.

The data showed that “religious affiliation is a good predictor of attitudes toward the morality of potentially conflictual political acts.” (56) I was amazed at how much religion tied in to politics as I read through the content of this book. I know from experience in talking with people that the two are interconnected, but this research shed some amazing light on the subject. I agreed with the author’s findings that “Religion often serves to motivate social and political changes that are difficult to discern and interpret because they are not immediately recognizable at the level of national politics.” (154) That concept holds true for Latin America, and it is also profoundly true for the United States.

I come from a religious background that is very politically conservative. The church I attend tends to be politically conservative, thus the idea that politically conservative ideas are religiously normal. On the other hand, I live in the community of Homewood that tends to be very politically liberal and religiously liberal. The main entrance to the public school where I work and my daughter attends school has a life size picture of Barack Obama in the entrance to the building. I am close friends with several Christians from Homewood who voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama. My point, and that of the book, is that often politics and religion are combined. As in the case of Guatemala and Costa Rica, or the suburbs of Pittsburgh and Homewood, these interactions can be very different. The majority of my job at North Way Christian Community involves mobilizing politically conservatively people to be involved in meaningful relationships with politically liberal people. That is a dilemma I have truly grown to love so much because relationships tend to blur the lines between what people think they know for sure and what they do not know about the world.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Vryan

Hasn't anyone ever told you that you'e not supposed to talk about either politics or religion ? LOL

Obviously one's faith and one's politics MUST be intertwined. One's faith is the basis for one's morals, ethics, view of right and wrong, etc. on which one's politics are based. So the question is which drives which - does my faith drive my politics, or do I allow my politics drive my faith?

If you've ever watched The Truth Project, there is an entire episode devoted to 'the American Experiment'. In it it is stated that democracy only works if you are governing a basically moral, ethical, God fearing people; otherwise it degenerates into people voting for their own largesse. I think that is true. So, when we see a drive for democracy in some of these countries, it is because people feel it will enable them to repair social injustices, or is it to feed their own appetites? I wish it was the former, but I'm afraid that it well may be the latter.

John V