This paper critiques the secularism of global governance scholarship. Mainstream analyses rely on overarching (neo) liberal framings and critiques. Consequently, they neglect the non-liberal and non-secular aspects of contemporary humanitarian and development assemblages. Predominant accounts exclude how religious actors are—and have always been—central to the global political project. The overlap of global humanitarianism with fields of religious practice suggests a need to investigate its religious dimensions. I do so here by focusing on the history and practice of evangelical humanitarianism. Securing the conditions necessary for the material welfare of others is an important contemporary evangelical practice and interpretative framework. This is evidenced by the growing number of professional evangelical relief organizations; support for emergency appeals and aid; growth in humanitarian short-term mission initiatives; and increasing numbers of global North–South evangelical church partnerships. These activities and the history from which they derive demonstrate how political modernity is not, nor has ever been, secular. Nevertheless, a prevailing self-image to the contrary legitimizes a global administrative bureaucracy and its intervention into the global South.
This analysis identifies a normative tension between saving souls and saving humans that motivates contemporary evangelical political engagements. I argue that a deeper understanding of this tension is imperative for both understanding (1) how various evangelical groups act in areas of relief and development and decide whether to work through, or circumvent, mainstream structures of aid; and (2) the internal tensions underlying global governance as a whole. In contrast to standard accounts that emphasize the liberal or state-centric dimensions of global governance, this tension reconceptualizes the governance project as an open site of struggle. It provides an alternative framework through which the entire governance project may be reconceptualized. This is an empirically grounded theoretical paper, utilizing qualitative research conducted in DC, London, Juba, and Nairobi.
