Publications
 |
Little, Dale W., editor. Japan Evangelical Missionary Association ad hoc Theological Commission Response to the Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission's Pamphlet No.6, Fundamentalism: "Affirmations and Questions for Discussion." Tokyo, October 2007.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1) Potentially divisive strong statements
The pamphlet makes some strong statements regarding views held by some American evangelicals that are shared by some members of both JEMA and JEA.(1) Both JEA and JEMA reflect diverse theological positions. These kinds of strong statements have the potential to cause friction and disharmony in both organizations. Is there a way to accomplish the purpose of the pamphlet without making such strong, potentially divisive statements? Is it wise for the JEA Theological Commission to use its important position within the evangelical world of Japan for the purpose of influencing Japanese evangelicals toward theological positions it knows are not shared by all its members and are not required for membership in JEA?
2) Toward a sound theology of peacemaking
The pamphlet's concern to distance Japanese evangelicals from their American counterparts creates a theological context of negative critique. The potentially positive, constructive, and perhaps unique contribution a Japanese evangelical theology of peacemaking could make to the global evangelical movement is thus overshadowed in the pamphlet by its undertone of anti-American rhetoric.(2) The result seems to be a reactionary theology of peacemaking. Is it possible to publish a Japanese flavored evangelical theology of peace without building its case upon the many perceived theological mistakes of American evangelicalism?
*************
(1)
Sekino: “From the position of dispensationalism as described above, the establishment of Israel as a nation becomes a portent that the end of history as we know it is drawing near. A pessimistic eschatology then becomes one's worldview. Since nothing can be done about evil in the world today, more than fulfilling our societal responsibilities, what we should do now in preparation for the end becomes only that we bring as many as we can to the feet of Christ to save them from this world engulfed in flames.” (II.A.)
Sekino: “Fundamentalists went underground, became a sect, and vanished from the public stage until the 1970's.” (II.A.)
Sekino: “In the 1940's fundamentalist groups split into Fundamentalism, an exclusivist, militant, separationist group and a moderating evangelicalism.” (II.B.)
In describing the six day creation position, Sekino states: “This is a theory that has been accepted not only by American Christian fundamentalists but broadly by evangelicals. This position has the drawback of not accepting anything of evolutionary biology or of astronomical data, and does not want to dialogue with science in general.” (III)
Sekino: “There is an ideology in the claims of the Religious Right in America that labels its opponents as devils and foments anger and enmity….At the center of Christian fundamentalism is the emotion of 'anger'…” (V.A.)
Sekino: “Hidden at the roots of both apocalyptic, sensationalist eschatology and creation science are problems with biblical interpretation. It is easy to fall into extreme claims with a literal biblical hermeneutic, lacking in covenantal and atoning consideration and which ignores the purpose for which the Bible was written or the linguistic and cultural restrictions that were upon the writers at the time. American Christian Fundamentalism, especially in the South where it has widely infiltrated its background with simple-minded (thinking), avoids intricate methods of biblical interpretation and has an abusive trend particular to evangelicalism that simplifies the reading of scripture.” (V.E.)
Okayama, in criticizing pretribulational premillennialism: “The first problem with this eschatology is that it is exceedingly this worldly, politicized, and secularized.” (II.C.1.)
Okayama, continuing to critique pretribulational premillennialism: “The emphasis on an eschatological war is also a problem. Christian fundamentalists have a great interest in Armageddon, the final world war, which according to some is identified with a nuclear war. And because the final world war will occur before the return of Christ there is a tendency to perceive war on earth positively as an eschatological sign.” (II.C.3.)
Further critique by Okayama of pretribulational premillennialism: “When Christian eschatology is secularized in such a way that the kingdom of God conquers by means of this worldly military power, various distortions are produced.” (II.C.3.)
(2)
Kurasawa (Foreword): “The American evangelical church's support of the Iraq War and its pro-war tendency have created a situation in which Japan's evangelical church has been questioned and criticized by those who are opposed to the Iraq War… It should be remembered that points of agreement and disagreement between American and Japanese evangelical churches regarding thinking about and responding to the Iraq War need to be examined theologically.”
Okayama: “The problematic points of contemporary American Christian fundamentalism are nationalism, a simplistic dualism between good and evil, and a secularized eschatology” (Summary)
Okayama: “Why is it that American Christian fundamentalists even now continue to offer strong support for the Iraq War? Along with strong doubts about the Iraq War many Japanese Christian churches are also developing a feeling of loathing toward it so that the issue is becoming a stumbling block to evangelism in Japan.” (Introduction)
Okayama, referring to America: “If a country is possessed by the wild idea of conquering the world through its military might, and if that country leads the world toward destruction, we Japanese have the responsibility to point out its foolishness.” (III.B.)
Watanabe: “It is of crucial importance that we let our government know of our opposition to war, and we must examine and critique the theology of President Bush.” (In Conclusion)
*************