Fujimoto, Mitsuru. Translated by Cynthia Dufty. "The Exclusion Principle as a Black Curtain: An Inquiry from Theological Anthropology" (排他主義という黒幕神学的人間論からの考察). Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission Pamphlet 6 (May 2006): 37-48.
Mitsuru Fujimoto is a professor at Immanuel Bible Training College and a lecturer at Aoyama Gakuin University. He is the pastor of Immanuel Takatsu Christ Church.
Download as MSWord document: fujimoto.doc (84.5 K).
Download as Adobe PDF document: fujimoto.pdf (183.85 K).
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
THE EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AS A BLACK CURTAIN: AN INQUIRY FROM THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
SUMMARY
Fundamentalism is by no means just a current social problem arising in a particular religious group. Rather it is something we humans share in common arising from identity formation and the problem of exclusion. By looking theologically at the common human tendency to exclude that exists as the black curtain (i.e. hidden puppeteer, a force controlling from the shadows) behind fundamentalism we can think more generally about the fundamentalism that is near to us personally.
INTRODUCTION
The term, “fundamentalism”, which is being heard so frequently recently, originally was used for an early twentieth century theological movement that arose in reaction to Christian liberal theology and took a stand for the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox teaching. However in the last several decades, this term has not been limited to Christians but has been adopted as a label for various movements in today's society with a certain characteristic tendency. Not only has the phenomenon of fundamentalism been seen within Protestantism and Islam, it also can be seen within Catholicism, Judaism, in the Asian world, among environmentalists and in the natural sciences.1
To summarize this trend simply, it is the tendency of various religious or ethnic groups or ideologies that are overwhelmed by insolvable problems and are unable to find persuasive answers as they encounter an uncertain world to try to return to original, traditional, orderly and unwavering principles.
When encountering a complex and uncertain, pluralistic and individualized world, a group with a strong consciousness of its identity may attempt to revive a value system or tradition that existed in the past. When this occurs, not only does this give rise to conflict between conservatism and reform within the same group, it is also undeniable that this way of seeking group identity, because it is a fundamentalism that prioritizes basic principles thought to be applicable to every situation, results in a intense exclusivism that opposes other value systems, ways of thinking and practices. The social threat posed by movements during the last several decades that oppose the modern era and show an extreme rejection of social currents is surely due to this sort of fundamentalism.
Before this word “fundamentalism” became such a hot topic throughout the world, we can recall that “nationalism” had become a problem. [Some examples are] the internal strife in Bosnia representing problems of Eastern Europe, tribal conflicts seen in Asia such as in Indonesia or in Myanmar, the Middle East conflicts, and civil wars in Africa such as in Somalia, Congo, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda. Although they live in the same region and are part of the same country, members of different ethnic groups repeatedly come into conflict. When cultures, religions or languages are different, and differences between ethnic groups are not tolerated, the magma of enmity, bearing a long history of conflicts, erupts in every area of the world. Ethnic conflict is surely not the result of the collapse of the Cold War order because, when we look at world history, we have to say that confrontation between ethnic groups is ubiquitous.2
This article will analyze theologically the exclusive mentality that lurks in the shadows behind the fundamentalism, which is not limited to a certain religion, and the ubiquitous ethnocentrism, which are spreading around the world like a wild fire. Neither fundamentalism nor ethnocentrism is merely a problem of present society arising in certain religious groups; rather they both spring from the common human problems of self-identity and exclusivism.
Zygmunt Bauman, an expert on Western Post-Modernism who has taught at Warsaw University and Leeds University, says the following. “Modernity is prominent for the tendency to shift moral responsibilities away from the moral self either toward socially constructed and managed supra-individual agencies, or through floating responsibility inside a bureaucratic 'rule of nobody.'”3 If we take up this problem from a Christian point of view, we all the more must examine each individual and moreover must look at what is in the human heart. In response to the fundamentalists of Palestine 2,000 years ago, the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus said it is not some kind of food that defiles a person but it is what is in the human heart and is expressed outwardly that defiles that person. Just as food or systems are not the problem, this article will argue that it is not doctrines or emphases but what is in the human heart that is the root of the problem
Also, as the target of this kind of investigation, we have to apply these things to ourselves. Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra, shows discernment in saying that the reason the religious people of that time opposed Jesus and finally had him crucified was not because they were evil people but because they were “the good and just.” These who bore their own sense of being “good and just” were actually prisoners of their own good consciences and so they had to condemn as evil Jesus who rejected their notions of good. Those who were confident of their own righteousness crucified Jesus, who presented an alternative righteousness, to support their own consciences.4 Nietzsche also said “the harm the good do is the most harmful harm.”5 I want to proceed while keeping in mind this unseen pitfall that threatens when religious people fall into fundamentalism
While taking into consideration these things, the purpose of this article then is to not look at “fundamentalism” as the doctrinal emphasis of a special group but to look theologically at our common human tendency of exclusion, which is the real controlling power behind fundamentalism and to help us think more generally and also more personally about fundamentalism.
**********
1 Werner Huth, Flucht in die Gewissheit: Fundamentalismus und Moderne (Claudius-Verlag: 1995) 37. Published in Japanese as: 原理主義確かさへの逃避 translated by 志村恵 (新教出版社, 2002).
2 Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press,1985) 5.
3 Zygmunt Bauman, Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995) 99.
4 Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Translated by R. J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1990) 262ff.
5 Nietzsche, Friedrich, Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What One Is, Translated by R.J. Hollinglade (London: Penguin, 1979) 100.
Publications
