Sekino, Yuji. Translated by Gary Fujino. "Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism: The Problem of American Christian Fundamentalism for Japanese Evangelicalism." (原理主義と福音主義 -- 米国キリスト教原理主義に見る日本の福音派の問題). Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission Pamphlet 6 (May 2006): 17-48.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ]
II. THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM
II.A. The Rise of Christian Fundamentalism (1920's)
In the 1920’s seventy percent of all Christian denominations were of the majority “mainline” Protestant Christianity which had been predicated on a modernist, liberal German theology. This group waved the “social gospel” flag, and placed its emphasis on social movements and societal reform more than on saving souls or evangelism. Furthermore, evolutionary theory was approved of and reading the Bible from an historical-critical research perspective was accepted wholesale. The inspiration of the Scriptures or its inerrancy were denied since the Bible was looked upon as a human document. Leanings of contempt and ridicule at these conservative Christian factions opposing them was strong, and they separated themselves by calling them “anti-intellectual” (there was a tendency with conservatives at the time toward a reductionism, which fearfully denied scientific data contradicting or opposed to the biblical accounts; they would glibly deal with unresolvable problems as “the work of God”). On the other hand, “conservative” Protestant Christianity was made up of minority factions with only twenty-five percent of all Christians at that time. This group rejected modernity and valued traditional Christianity. They took the view that all of the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments were the wholly inspired Word of God without error. And because they particularly valued the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith they were later disparagingly labeled as “fundamentalists.”
This label of “fundamentalist” has its origin in the twelve volume set of pamphlets called “The Fundamentals,” of which three million were distributed free of charge between 1910 – 1915 to counter liberal Christian theological doctrines. There were five foundational doctrines: the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, Christ’s substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection, and His visible Second Coming (at the beginning of the movement the pamphlets were entitled, “The veracity of Christ’s miracles”). Also, in opposition to the social gospel of the liberal church, they made as its banner the salvation of the lost as its priority and interest in dealing with societal problems waned at this time. Instead, the calling was thought to be to save as many as possible from a society headed for destruction. Theologically, the influence of dispensationalism was strong.
Let’s touch upon the doctrine of dispensationalism (revelation history/“dispensations”). This was a view of the Bible originally put forward by the English missionary, John Darby. With the adoption of the “Scofield Reference Bible” which was published in 1909, this view spread widely among American Christians.
FUNDAMENTALISM AND EVANGELICALISM
Dispensational doctrine divides the Bible into seven periods/ages (“dispensations”) of history from the Creation to the End Times. Through a literal hermeneutic of the prophetic books of the Bible (Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, etc.), events throughout history are placed within these books which are then used for predicting the future. Eschatologically, dispensationalism accepts Christ’s return before His thousand year kingdom (pre-millenial), as well as a pre-tribulational rapture (the double Parousia theory). Christ will return first secretly for the saints who will be saved so they will not have to go through the time of tribulation but who will instead be taken up in the air by the rapture. After seven years of tribulation, Christ will return again with His saints to establish a thousand year kingdom. At the end of history, Israel will be restored as a nation and God will repeatedly intervene to save Israel. However, after the rapture, during the seven year tribulation the world-dominating anti-Christ will appear and a worldwide battle of good versus evil, the war to end all wars – Armageddon – will occur. Almost all the Jewish people will be destroyed but the remnant will believe in Christ. During that time, the temple of God will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and the Jewish animal sacrifices will be reestablished. After the final battle, Jesus Christ will return to the earth as the King of the Jews and will rule eternally over the entire world from the Jerusalem temple in a restored kingdom of David. In order to survive the battle of Armageddon, people must recognize God’s special election of the Jews, and must approve of His divine plan to return Israel to the land of Judah and Samaria. If they do then, when Christ comes again, He will save those who approve as His righteous ones (Genesis 12:3). Those who criticized and attacked Israel will be thrown into the eternal lake of fire as anti-Christs.
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. The contrasting position to this sees the coming of the thousand year kingdom as a result of the world getting better through human effort and progress. This “post-millenialism” believed in an optimistic eschatology in which Christ would return after the thousand year kingdom. This doctrine was mainstream before the First World War. But in the anxious world that the American public anguished over during the First World War, dispensationalism became widely accepted.
Another symbolic event representative of the 1920’s was the Scopes trial, also known as “the monkey trial.” This was a case where John Scopes, a high school biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was declared guilty of violating state law by his teaching of evolution. The trial became a showdown between prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, former Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State, who was a fundamentalist and anti-evolutionist, and the capable attorney, Clarence Darrow. This garnered the interest of the entire country as being a showdown between liberals and fundamentalists. Bryan won in court but the so-called anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists and their obstinate narrow-mindedness caused the public to decide that fundamentalism was out of touch with the times. The “court of public opinion” overwhelmingly leaned toward the liberals, dealing the fundamentalists a fatal blow. This trial was a watershed. Fundamentalists went underground, became a sect, and vanished from the public stage until the 1970’s. During that time, American society rapidly secularized but the fundamentalist camp, forced into silence, established their own churches and seminaries and universities, preserving their energy from within.
II.B. The Split between Christian Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (1940's)
In the 1940’s fundamentalist groups split into Fundamentalism, an exclusivist, militant, separationist group and a moderating evangelicalism (in the narrow/conservative sense of the word). The latter formed the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942. However, after this, “evangelicalism” in its broader sense came to be used in a derogatory manner as a label which included even Fundamentalists. One needs to take caution with the broad meaning of this term, “evangelicalism,” in that way that the media makes use of it nowadays.
Broadly, evangelicalism can be classified into three groups: Christian Fundamentalism (radicalism); the narrow meaning of evangelicalism/neo-evangelicalism (moderates), and Pentecostals/charismatics. Four points can be raised as characteristics of Fundamentalism: spreading the gospel, absolute biblical inerrancy, dispensationalism, and separatism. Contrastively, moderate evangelicalism (in its narrow sense) is identical in its content on the foundations of Christian faith with the fundamentalist group but without its exclusivist, militant, separationism or anti-intellectualism. Yet this (narrow sense for evangelicalism) does not side with the liberal theology or neo-orthodoxy that comes out of the WCC (World Council of Churches). This group is moderate even conservative in its faith and theology. Specifically, it is a conservative Protestantism which, in particular, has a high regard for and emphasizes the authority of the Bible and personal conversion, an evangelicalism which stands in the Reformation tradition. This evangelicalism opposes the anti-intellectualism of Christian fundamentalism and prizes intellectualism. They are made up of people passionate for world missions, who emphasize an individualized, personal faith and spiritual renewal together with a high regard for the Bible as the Word of God.
II.C. The Rise of Evangelicalism in its Broad Sense and its Involvement in Government (1970’s-1980’s)
With the advent of the 1970’s, evangelicalism grew rapidly and began to spread, contending for power with mainline Christianity and eventually overtaking it with the most in American Protestant denominations. They overcame the old counter-cultural, anti-intellectual image of fundamentalism and promoted movements which truly attempted to bring about biblical and evangelical growth in its churches. This high regard for both the Bible and the intellect, and its emphasis on personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, lead to spiritual regeneration and true faith.
This sort of advance by evangelicalism was also the need of the age. “In the midst of a self-critical mood after the Vietnam War, where optimism in the progress and development of the American dream had broken down, many chose the conservative form of Christianity as a way of filling their spiritual vacuum. Its strong value system and unshakable faith possessed a great appeal not found in liberalism” (Kuribayashi 2004:171). The contribution of mass evangelism under Billy Graham and by television evangelists was also great. Billy Graham has his roots as a fundamentalist but became an evangelist who pushed for a more inclusive evangelicalism, and the success of his crusades propelled evangelicalism’s rise to power. He became its representative figure. But because of his close friendships with successive American presidents, and because he wholly supported the Vietnam War, on another level, he bore the function of being a conduit as a public figure that caused evangelicals to become involved in politics. Also at this time evangelical television evangelists (“televangelists”) were competing for religious broadcasting and developed their own large viewer base. Later, however, they also began to share political messages and played a part in evangelicalism’s involvement in government. Moreover, two global congresses were convened, with evangelism as its topic and American evangelicalism at its center: The Berlin World Congress on Evangelism (1966) and the Lausanne World Congress on Evangelism or “LWCE” (1974). The “Lausanne Covenant” was adopted at the LWCE, which repented for past indifference of Christian responsibility toward society and clarified and set forth the social responsibility of evangelical Christians (for social concerns and participation in them).
A conspicuous characteristic of this age was the involvement of evangelicalism in politics. Until the 1970’s, non-intervention in government was evangelicalism’s creed but, after the 1960’s, a counter-culture appeared on the scene, which criticized and denied the traditional culture. America became a permissive society which allowed divorce, immorality, living together, out of wedlock births, abortion and homosexual love. Moreover, in the 1970’s, feeling a sense of crisis with the liberal current of pluralism, religious tolerance, inclusivism, etc. covering the land, evangelicalism began to wave its flag, on a societal level, for “good old American” values, the traditional family, the restoration of paternal authority, opposition to homosexual love, opposition to abortion, and the return of prayer to public schools. “It is said that Fundamentalism became popular in an age where values were wavering. Through this one type of large-scale protest against upheaval in society and in protecting society against the same, Fundamentalism put gasoline on a fire…This is how Fundamentalists took on their battle against liberals or, in their own words, “modernists” or “humanists.” As an absolutely unshakable creed, Fundamentalists protected the foundational doctrines (fundamentals) of Christianity and believed that they must be reintroduced (lit., “recovered”) into day-to-day life. The Bible is God’s inerrant Word, the absolute and unique teaching. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world; humans are saved only through faith in Christ. With this fundamentalist Christianity as its foundation, the Religious Right was a movement of neo-conservatives who actually tried to restore “law and order” to America by starting to be involved in politics” (Kuribayashi 2004:39). The first time evangelicalism was mobilized for this was when conservative Republican senator Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964. In 1976, Jimmy Carter who has his roots in evangelicalism won the presidential election and then in 1980 Ronald Reagan, with his roots in evangelicalism, was elected.
Also during this period, new Religious Right groups progressively were established. The Moral Majority (founded in 1979 by its leader Jerry Falwell and disbanded in 1987) was called the “marriage” between secular conservatives and religious conservatives, where the secular (non-religious) New Right used television evangelists from the Religious Right to attempt to form the primary conservative influence in government. It was the opportunity that brought politics to the notice of formerly uninterested evangelical Christian conservatives. As a movement which was troubled at the decline in American social values after the 1970’s and which sought the revival of healthy morals, the Moral Majority had as its goal the restoration of contemporary America to being a “nation under God” and that Americans, who were God’s “chosen people,” would spread liberty and democracy throughout the world. This claim was, first, a critique against secular humanism as well as a demand for the restoration of a time for prayer and for the teaching of “creation science” alongside evolution in the public school system.
Secondly, to protect the traditional family, they adopted stances against abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, gay rights, governmental intervention of home-based education, drugs, rock and roll, and pornography.
Thirdly, with its doctrine of American supremacy and seeing things through a simplistic dualism free nations were understood as being in the Christian camp and the Communist bloc in the camp of the anti-Christ. The powers opposed to America were perceived as being the devil opposed to God so the claim was made for an arms build-up and of opposition to a reduction in nuclear arms. The victory of Ronald Reagan, whom they endorsed in the 1980 presidential race, might be called the turning point for the reappearance of conservatism in American society that continues to this day (the greatest turnaround since the 1925 Scopes trial). In the stead of their tenacious fundamentalist predecessors, The Moral Majority was anti-evolutionist. They fought for the defense of traditional family values (a denial of feminism and homosexual love), were against abortion, and sought the build up of religious education in public schools.
“The ability of Fundamentalists to extend their societal influence was nothing more then altering their xenophobic and rigid stance and adjusting it to the age. By doing so they were able to once again respond to society’s needs through supplying values of certainty that were sought by the American public in a time of uncertainty. In the 1980’s the impetus of the fundamentalist doctrine which had long served them – that of the pre-millenial kingdom theory worldview which said: human beings were powerless and the significance of government or of social movements were not to be acknowledged – was changed in part. Now, they began to argue that ‘God’s judgment will certainly fall. Even so, the duty of Christ’s disciple is to try to share the gospel with those in this world AND to turn this present world into God’s kingdom. Because of this, they were diplomatically and completely set against the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union, and policies for easing tensions through compromise.’ On the domestic front they needed to overturn the social policies of secularists who weakened family values” (Ogawa 2003: 73-74). In the same conservative grouping was the Christian Coalition, formed in 1989, by Pat Robertson.
Also, in 1990, “Promise Keepers” was founded by Tony Evans, as a national organization of conservative fundamentalists who had the goal of reviving American morality. They waved the flag of the duty and responsibility for husbands to be the head of the home. They aimed for the revival of the traditional American family and held to a peculiar eschatological thought, “dominionism.” Moreover, the Christian Reconstruction Movement under Gary North, based upon its dominion theology, attempted to bring to reality a Christian nation based upon theonomy (God’s law) and, following movements from the 1970’s, had as its objectives the purifying of America from its present moral corruption and the rebuilding of a nation grounded in the Scriptures. This ran counter to dispensationalism in its eschatology and worldview.
II.D. Father and Son Bush and Christian Fundamentalism’s Support of these Presidents
The reason President George H.W. Bush (1988-1992) picked Dan Quayle to be his vice-president was to engage the New Religious Right, since Quayle’s wife was a devout evangelical/Christian fundamentalist. The younger president, George W. Bush’s, relationship with the Religious Right began at this time. During the first Gulf War (1991), father Bush invited Billy Graham to pray with him as he sought support for the war from the New Religious Right, which included evangelicalism. For president Bill Clinton’s tenure (1992-2000), the New Religious Right played the part of critic of that administration, and in 2000, son Bush’s presidency was born. This was an adminstration that came about because of its engagement with the New Religious Right, winning by a slim margin over candidate Gore.
With the outbreak of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, America saw an unexpected and huge turnaround in the resurrection of patriotism and fundamentalism. At that time, those who could be said to have exerted the greatest influence upon determining policy in Bush’s adminstration were neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives are a current of conservatism that has grown in strength since the 1980’s and the Reagan administration and is composed largely of Jewish-American elites from the Eastern United States. It could be said that they have joined forces with the Religious Right and fundamentalist powerbrokers (Southern anti-elitist) to exercise influence over the Bush administration (they share commonalities with those who support Israel and with the Religious Right which opposes abortion and homosexual love). Characteristics of neo-conservatism include: (the belief in the need) to exercise unilateral military force; viewing the world through a dualistic confrontational framework of good versus evil; seeking for moral clarity in diplomatic relations; and a skepticism of international cooperation policies.
Publications
