ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how a group of evangelical Christians from the Millennial generation interacted with the concept of globalized social justice. There are increasing numbers of evangelical Christians who are interested in initiatives emphasizing social justice. This is a change from evangelicalism that focuses on proselytizing and conservative ‘moral values.’ I draw on anthropological ethnographic research conducted at a ‘justice-based’ Christian training school in New Zealand that consisted of observation of the course lectures, and interviews with students from eight different countries and three continents.
My research found that these young Christians lived in a de-territorialized world as ‘global egalitarians’ (Banai et al. 2011, p. xii). Studying in New Zealand, fighting human trafficking in Southeast Asia, and then returning home to North America or Europe were common to their expected life trajectories. Having exposure, first through digital technology and then through short-term trips, to the rest of the world made them aware of issues such as poverty, inequality, and the precarity that many people live with. These experiences, combined with their Christian faith, create a unique version of global citizenship.
Accordingly, I argue that this specific understanding of global citizenship gained through social justice activities is beginning to change and reform institutional evangelical Christianity in western countries. The students were no longer content to be ‘overfed’ with Bible verses and moral imperatives; instead, they perceive of a God who wants them to act to stop injustice. Christians interested in social justice are being encouraged to experience ‘God’s global heart’ and become ‘world-changers’ (Hancock 2014, p. 157); that ‘the gospel and the message that binds us together … transcends culture’ (Baillie Smith et al. 2013, p. 129). I also argue that the use of the internet and social media in learning about injustice allows young evangelicals to circumnavigate conventional religious supervision and ‘get around’ local church leaders who are not supportive of their interests.
