Watanabe, Akira. Translated by Jim Peterson. "9/11 and the American Evangelical Church: An Observation and Analysis" (9・11 当時のアメリカの福音派の状況と分析). Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission Pamphlet 6 (May 2006): 75-88.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ]
III. THEOLOGICALLY UNFOUNDED GOD TALK
I participated in Blue Grass Church's Bible study program called “Building U.” Of the 30 some classes offered on Wednesday nights, “The Bible, Islam and the Middle East Conflict” was particularly popular with over 160 in attendance every week.
FIELD NOTE (3)
In the first session the instructor (Chris West) stated that he was a Republican and got a few laughs by chiding former President Clinton. He stated that he was a freelance writer and that he had volunteered to teach this class.
The first two sessions were typical of a church sponsored Bible study class. The Old Testament was quoted frequently. The main point was that the present situation in the Middle East is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Drawing from Genesis 17:8 where God promised to give all of Canaan to Abraham, the Father of Israel, West emphasized that the establishment of modern Israel was Scripturally founded. He spoke of Abraham's son, Ishmael and his failure to receive God's blessing, quoting Genesis 16:12; “He will be a wild donkey, of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” He explained that this was the reason why “Arabs, who are the descendents of Ishmael, are a menace to the world.” The image of people hanging on his every word and feverishly taking notes left a strong impression on me. I asked a woman in her 30s who was sitting next to me why she had chosen this class. She responded, “I want to know more about the Middle East, and I want to learn more about how everything is tied in with Scripture. As for prophesy… well, Jesus could return any day now.”
The third session dealt with Middle East history. Beginning with the Old Testament, the teacher spoke in great detail, going on to the Balfour Declaration and the Middle East War. From the fourth week the various countries of the Middle East were introduced and we had several guest speakers who shared their own experiences. The guests were quite a diverse group, including a Jew, an Iraqi, an Iranian, a pilot who worked in the Middle East, and a former Secret Service agent. They spoke of the Middle East conflict from personal experience. They all were members of the church or had close connections with it.
A 22 year old Iraqi, ______, shared his own story in fluent English. Born in Northern Iraq and having lived in Pakistan and now the U.S., he had recently been introduced to this Bible study class at Blue Grass Church. He stated that “Arabs are some of the most ignorant and hypocritical people in the world.” He explained that the Iran Iraq war and the massacre of Kurds with chemical weapons were what turned him against Arabs. His personal website included an essay entitled, “Why I am not against the war.” The essay was punctuated with numerous pictures of Kurdish women and children massacred by President Sadaam Hussein.
West gave a summary of what had been covered on March 12th, the final session. He claimed that “just like Nazi Germany, the Muslims have started a war of propaganda.” He quoted several Muslim websites stating that “Muslims seek peace” and added his criticism to each one. The class responded to each criticism with laughter. “If Islam is really about peace, why are our missionaries being killed? This is shear nonsense!” He concluded by saying that “the real war is about to begin, and it will be a war of Islam against Christianity.” January 15th - March 12th, 2003.
A survey about the war was distributed to the 167 participants in this Bible study class on March 5th, 2003 (2 weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq) and 127 valid responses were received. All responders said they were Christians and 94 percent were members of this church. 88% said they attended church at least twice a week, showing their high level of religious commitment. The breakdown by age was as follows; under 20 - 0%, 20s - 2%, over 40 - 82%. 55 responders were male, 70 were female and 2 did not state a gender. 116 were Americans and 11 did not indicate a nationality. In response to the question, “If the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, will you support it?” 121 said they would, 3 said they wouldn't and 3 did not respond.
Responders were asked to reply in their own words to the question. “What are your reasons for supporting or opposing the war?” The answers can be divided into several general categories. The first would be answers that indicated a fear of terrorism, such as; “Hussein has weapons that enable him to threaten our (U.S.A.) peaceful democratic way of life” and “We must confront and defeat the evil of terrorism that attempts to destroy our way of life in this country” Included in this category were some answers that indicated a sense of paranoia, such as; “Saddam Hussein is an evil man who is a threat to the whole world. He is the antichrist.” and “The mad man must be stopped or he will destroy us.” The second category is those who said we should go to war to set the people of the Middle East free. Answers in this category included, “90% of Iraqi's people want a change of regime.” and “I support getting rid of terrorism….I support aiding freedom everywhere.” The belief that we need to protect freedom came through very strongly in this questionnaire in answers such as, “We have our freedom because of those who have fought for it” and “We need to go to war to protect the freedom of our country.” The third category was those who stated a belief in the justness of the United States. “War is justified by the 'Just War' doctrine even in preemptive attacks to restrain evil. Our nation has the right and duty to protect its citizens no matter what the rest of the world thinks” and “We have a moral obligation to provide leadership for the rest of the world” were some of the answers in this category.
Based on these answers it is clear that the opinions of the responders were not based on any particularly deep theological reflection. What is reflected in these answers is a defense of the concept of fighting for freedom and justice that is so deeply rooted in American culture. Another value that is strongly reflected here is the belief in the use of force to destroy evil. A self complacent worldview that assumes other countries will welcome the wars we wage is also evident in these answers.
Religious elements were most evident in the responses that dealt with feelings toward the President. The word “God” was used most often when the responders were talking about the President. Some of the following responses are examples. “I trust in our President knowing he is consulting in God and openly speaks of his religious beliefs” and “God's word needs to be spread throughout the nations. ... There are far too many unsaved in our nation, but in Iraq and the Middle East countries they have very little, if any hope of coming to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. ...What other nation is willing to lead this effort? God has a U.S. President in place that has a heart for Him and is willing to live by the Word of God.” The logical conclusion of these opinions can be summarized in the following response. “We must support our president and honor his decisions -He is a godly man.” It is clear that the primary reason for supporting the president is not rooted in politics or logic but rather is an emotional association with his religious posture.
The truth of the matter is that President Bush's affirmative stance toward the American public lies at the root of his popularity. While criticized abroad for his U.S.-centric foreign policy as evidenced in the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and his oil driven Middle East policy, domestically that policy is seen as the ultimate affirmation of the American status quo. Richard Pierard and Robert Linder state that there are two varieties of civil religion. One is prophetic in nature and the other is priestly. (Pierard and Linder; 2003, p.34) The prophet is one who speaks judgment and calls for repentance. The priest serves to affirm the people as they are, and makes offerings of appeasement on behalf of their sins. Thus, when the people are in support of a priestly president such as Bush, they are not required to repent of, or change their lifestyles. At the root of the emotional support for America's President Bush is a subconscious desire to protect the current lifestyle of the American people. A young housewife made the following remark during a small group that I participated in on March 24th, 2003. “I see and hear on T.V. of the sad things that are happening. But I am putting my trust in God. I have put everything in God's hands so I cannot worry about anything.” While appearing on the surface to be a deeply spiritual opinion, if in fact, such a view comes from a desire to protect one's own lifestyle, even at the expense of the destruction by war of lifestyles of people from other nations, then one must conclude that such a worldview is born of something that has no relation whatsoever to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Publications
