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 (continued)
3) Confusion about what American fundamentalism is and who American fundamentalists are
American evangelicalism is historically and theologically complex. Confusion is perpetrated in the pamphlet through its lack of clear definitions and consistent use of the term “fundamentalism.” For example, some articles in the pamphlet exhibit an overlap in the use of the terms “Christian fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism.” Christian fundamentalism is also described as conservative Christianity.(3) Although among American evangelicals there is a vocal left wing, evangelicals in the United States have historically agreed on such Biblical fundamentals as one God who is Creator and Lord of the universe, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, the literal return of Jesus Christ, and the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. However, evangelicals in America usually reserve the term fundamentalist for those who hold to the necessity of other doctrines, such as a literal six-day view of creation and dispensational premillennialism. But doctrinal positions in themselves do not identify a person as a Christian fundamentalist. Therefore, along with these doctrinal positions, fundamentalists have tended to socially isolate themselves from those with whom they have a disagreement on doctrinal and moral issues, including separating themselves from other evangelicals. In the American context, “Christian fundamentalists” often associate themselves with the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America (IFCA) whereas evangelicals choose to identify with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Some of the writers of the “Fundamentalist” pamphlet overlook this distinction by equating evangelicalism or conservative Christianity and Christian fundamentalism in America. That is, the pamphlet tended to group together American evangelicals and American Christian fundamentalists even though that is not the self-understanding of the Americans being described. The result is that the pamphlet redefines American evangelicals in a way that is alien to them. Is this revisionism intended?
4) Misrepresentation
Several writers in the pamphlet describe American evangelicals as having a pro-war attitude which leads the American nation to war and that this attitude derives from their theology.(4) It would probably be more accurate to characterize American evangelicals as reluctant to go to war. Furthermore, the aspects of conservative American evangelical theology which the pamphlet criticizes (see next point) do not necessarily result in American evangelicals applauding war. The rhetoric which this kind of misrepresentation generates might convince Japanese evangelicals that there is a distinction between Japanese and American evangelicals. That is, American evangelicals love war and Japanese evangelicals love peace. But the rhetoric also has the potential to unnecessarily antagonize many American evangelicals. Does the JEA Theological Commission place value on accurate representation of American evangelicals so that healthy dialogue is encouraged?
*************
(3)
After describing American fundamentalists as a “sect” and as “militant”, the same descriptions which are often used in the secular media, Sekino cautions against using “evangelicalism” in the way the media does (II.B.).
Sekino labels both Tony Evans, a frequent speaker at Promise Keepers, and Gary North of the Christian Reconstruction Movement as fundamentalists (II.C.). Actually, both would probably prefer to be called evangelicals. As a point of clarification, Tony Evans is not the founder of Promise Keepers. That distinction probably belongs to Bill McCartney.
Sekino describes Dan Quayle's wife an “evangelical/Christian fundamentalist.” (II.D.)
After describing the silence of the NAE regarding the Iraq War, Okayama asks, “Why is it that American Christian fundamentalists even now continue to offer strong support for the Iraq War?” (Introduction) In his mind, American evangelicals seem to be the same group as American fundamentalists.
Okayama classifies Jerry Jenkins, with his Left Behind series, as an American fundamentalist (II.C.).
(4)
Sekino: “Christian Fundamentalism was the undercurrent for the self-righteous, warlike posture that became remarkably apparent in the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereafter, “9/11”).” (Introduction)
Okayama: “The seventeenth century Puritans held to a strong sense of being an elected people who were the new Israel. Because of their immigration to North America, the genocide of the indigenous 'Indians' occurred. The design of White Christians to destroy the pagans of colored races amounts to the indiscriminate killing of three million people: the twelfth century Crusades; the seventeenth century massive killing of the former inhabitants of Central, South, and North America; the twentieth century Philippine atrocity, the bombing of Tokyo, the killing of many Japanese civilians with atomic bombs, and the Vietnam war. The twenty-first century bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq is consistent with this.” (I.B.2.)
Okayama: “Why do present day American Christian fundamentalists unconditionally affirm their own country's wars?” (II.A.1.)
Okayama: “In Japan it was nationalistic Shinto which was Shinto fundamentalism. Similarly, in America it was nationalistic Christianity which is Christian fundamentalism. 'Nationalistic Shinto' of the Meiji government was originally polytheistic Shinto, but in order to unify the nation it was monotheistically reconstructed. Similarly, 'nationalistic Christianity' was originally a non-violent, pacifist Christianity, but was jingoistically distorted for the sake of waging war.” (II.A.2)
Okayama: “The idea that God's kingdom expands through the destruction of evil by the military might of the good is consistent in Western Christian society. In comprehensive terms, this is American Christian fundamentalism.” (II.B.)
Okayama: “Seventeenth century Puritans idealized a theocracy like that of Calvin's Geneva. They had a sense of election and calling as the new Israel, and a feeling of strong continuity with Israel of the Old Testament. Therefore in the “new continent” the Puritans conquered the indigenous peoples of North America in order to build the kingdom of God, just as Israel had captured the land of Canaan.” (II.C.3.)
Ishihara: The American fundamentalism that is currently at issue is thought to result from a hermeneutic that superimposes on each other ethnic Israel's Exodus from Egypt and America's nation-building. That is to say, Israel's election and mission are taken to be America's election and mission, and can be seen as guiding the nation toward “wars of aggression”… (Abstract)
*************