Watanabe, Akira. Translated by Jim Peterson. "9/11 and the American Evangelical Church: An Observation and Analysis" (・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 ]
II. A THEORETICAL CONTEXT FOR THE PRO-WAR POSITION
One day after the attack the president of Southern Baptist Seminary, Albert Mohler Jr., published a statement on the school's homepage saying that Romans Chapter 13 calls for a “response of justice.” On February 6th, 2002 he made the following statement at a symposium on war that was hosted by the seminary. “When disorder prevails, that is the very essence of evil.” In an interview with him on March 11th, 2004 he stuck to his position that the war in Iraq was an action of self defense. His typically American pride was especially evident when he commented that, “The wars of this generation are essentially police actions on an international scale.” He attempted to scripturally justify his own position with the following words. “We have been placed in this nation as the salt and light of the earth and thus have the responsibility to do what is right, and to encourage our government to act accordingly.”
One of the motifs of fundamentalism is the desire to restore social order in the wake of the instability that has resulted from modernization. The reason for fundamentalism's hatred of abortion, feminism and homosexuality is that they are seen as agents of destruction of the traditional patriarchal social order. (Castells, 1999; p.24) While the focus of fundamentalism has expanded from the traditional focus on micro-level issues such as sexuality to the macro-level issue of war, the theme of maintaining order has remained unchanged. At this point I will introduce a sermon preached at the Blue Grass Christian Church as in interesting example of how the reasoning of the fundamentalist response to abortion has been transferred to the pro-war stance of fundamentalism.
FIELD NOTE (2)
Pastor Mark Rees began his Saturday evening sermon in typically articulate fashion. “This month we are in a series entitled 'Politically correct, Biblically incorrect.' Today's sermon is entitled, 'Life; the only correct choice.'”
In his first point he brought up the matter of abortion, which is politically acceptable but biblically unacceptable. He talked about the “Woman's Choice Resource Center,” an organization that was supported by their church. It is a group that seeks to dissuade women who are contemplating abortion and offer support in child rearing. During the sermon several young children were brought up to stand before the pulpit. The parents of those children had all been convinced to not have abortions through the work of that organization. The preacher read the children's names, one by one. The congregation responded with a standing ovation.
After the children and their parents were led out, the preacher continued his sermon. The second point of the sermon was euthanasia. “It is discussed as a positive thing in our society, but biblically it is unacceptable… There is meaning in the life that God gives, even when it involves suffering that is beyond human comprehension. Human beings may never take that life into their own hands.”
The third point of the sermon was human cloning. According to Rees, cloning is an act of human selfishness. He continued, “Every human is given an individual identity by God and cloning is a rejection of that truth. As Christians we must stand in opposition.”
The fourth point was capital punishment. Once again this was related to the sanctity of life. And yet it was at this point that the emphasis of the sermon completely reversed itself. Pastor Rees is a proponent of capital punishment. He continued; “Some Christians focus solely on 'Thou shall not kill.' But as the saying goes, 'If you shoot a man dead, you too must be killed.' Anyone who takes a precious life must pay with his own life.” At the end of the previous year Pastor Rees had led a newcomers class in which he made reference to Romans 13:4 which says political leaders “bear the sword” in support of his pro-capital punishment position. In deference to newcomers from various backgrounds Pastor Rees recognized that some may disagree with him on this point but went on to say that “the sword is a tool of killing and thus I believe this passage is saying that the authority to kill is placed in the hands of the nation.” In this sermon he was boldly stating that capital punishment is in accordance with God's word.
It didn't take much to carry this line of thought from capital punishment to the matter of war. The key tenets of the just war theory were shown on the large overhead screen, one by one. Rees explained, “The attack on 9/11 resulted in numerous civilian casualties. What they (Muslim extremists) did was not an act of just war. It was nothing more than terrorism.” He went on to emphasize that “when we Christians wage war we never do so as an act of aggression.” The American pride that insists all their wars are just was clearly evident in his words. When the sermon concluded the worship leader, Peter Perkins, asked all those in the congregation who had family members in the military to stand. He then prayed, “God, please protect those who fight to protect us.”
The image of those children who had received a standing ovation earlier in the sermon came to mind. Their lives had been saved from abortion by the faith of that congregation. But what if one of those children were to grow up and someday take the life of another. Would the members of the congregation not even hesitate in sending that individual to the death chamber? A sermon that had begun with the sanctity of life concluded with an affirmation of war. How could such a change in direction be possible? (January 18th, 2003)
Publications
