Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Yorifumi Yaguchi (b. 1935) is a Japanese Christian who, following his conversion, took the unpopular position of refusing to sing the Japanese national anthem, since it amounted to a prayer for the eternal reign of the emperor. He eventually became a respected university professor, pastor, and poet. He wrote the following words in 2007:

“When the Enola Gay left for the skies of Hiroshima, a chaplain prayed for the crew’s safe flight and successful bombing of the city. . . . They must have believed that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the will of God. But how did they feel at the sight of Hiroshima agonizing in the terrible whirlwind of destroying flames? More than 140,000 people died within a few months. Many were burnt in an instant, and far more people started to suffer from radiation disease for the rest of their lives. Was the crew pleased with this? . . . I imagine they were cheered by their seniors and comrades. They were told that the bomb was needed to end the war and that if they didn’t use it, far more war dead would have accrued. And they believed it. But what kind of god was he who was pleased with such terrible carnage? He is none other than the god of War. He must have been more than happy to see such colossal misery brought to the city and to human history. He is certainly different from the God who created human beings and who loved the world so much that He gave his only Son.”

Quotation taken from Apocalypse and Allegiance, by J. Nelson Kraybill (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010), 69-70.

Click on the image for an enlarged view of the chart. I produced it to serve as a study guide for the final exam in the course on the book of Revelation which I am teaching this term.

Explanation (click the image for an expanded, clearer view):
Illustration (click the image for an expanded, clearer view):

Does evangelical emphasis on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible strengthen or diminish the authority of Christ and the Bible? 

By Joseph Bayly, 1968.

If there’s been one doctrine strongly taught and defended by evangelicals during the past several decades, it’s the inspiration of the Scriptures. Among many, perhaps most, who taught the doctrine, verbal inerrancy of the original manuscripts has been upheld.

Now with all this emphasis on inspiration and inerrancy, you’d think that young people who have grown up in an evangelical milieu would be firmly grounded in the Bible’s authority.

They’re not. In my experience, at least, I don’t usually find the reflex, “The Bible says it and so it must be true,” among young men and women.

The reaction of a student in a Christian college, from an evangelical background, on being reminded that the Bible forbids premarital intercourse, is rather typical of the attitude I’ve found. “Maybe the Bible says it, but if it does, that isn’t what it means.”

The element of doubt about what the Bible teaches in areas of less emotional involvement is also significantly high among our evangelical teens and students. Does God have purpose in human suffering? Is God powerful enough to act today? Will Christ return to this earth? For a large number of evangelical young men and women, such questions are not settled by what the Bible says.

If my impressions are correct, we are in danger, period, since it is questionable whether morality and ethics—even faith (Rom. 10:17)—can stand, apart from the support of accepted biblical authority.

How do we explain this weak attitude toward the Bible’s authority? Have we unwittingly undermined confidence in the Bible?

I think we have got things out of the right order, at least as far as ordinary Christians—especially the young—are concerned. We have stressed the Bible’s inspiration and assumed that authority would take care of itself. But it hasn’t.

Theologians may conclude that inspiration is the ground of authority, and therefore must come first. And they are probably right in a theological context.

J. Gresham Machen once said that theology begins with the doctrine of inspiration, while apologetics ends with it. I suspect, if this is so, that we have made the mistake of treating our young as theologians rather than as potential converts or young Christians.

I believe that the debate about biblical inerrancy during recent decades has had the unfortunate result of weakening the Bible’s authority in the minds of the young. The possibility or impossibility of infinitesimal error has tended to obscure the great, overarching areas about which there is no question.

By arguing about whether there is dust on the piano, or whether the kitchen floor is completely clean, a husband will lower his children’s overall impression of their mother’s faithful loving service and diminish her authority in their eyes. When they are older, the children may see things in true perspective; then they are likely to blame the picayune, judgmental father. But meanwhile the harm has been done.

So it may be with the authority of the Scriptures in the eyes of the young. We argue about whether 3,000 or 30,000 soldiers fought in a battle and we lose a greater battle.

Children, teens, and students need to be brought into Christ’s kingdom by faith, by their own personally exercised choice. From a human standpoint, they need examples, adults who say and live the principle, “I believe the Bible.” And I think this is the really important thing to communicate to the young—complete submission to the Bible’s authority—rather than, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.”

I know that full conviction of the Bible’s authority over all of life comes through the Holy Spirit’s work. But it is often, perhaps usually communicated through the Christian community.

Perhaps this low view of Scripture’s authority is related to a low view of Christ’s authority. We may be reaping the results of recent decades when we appealed to young to “receive Christ as Savior,” bypassing His demand of absolute Lordship and doing violence to His Person.

A fresh breath of submission to the authority of Christ and the Scriptures in the Church, and in the lives of Christians—especially the young—could be the catalyst needed to change the world’s drift toward anarchy and nihilism.

And I am not usually a prophet of doom.*

*Note: Have the intervening 42 years proven Bayly right or wrong?

Joseph Bayly, “Out of My Mind,” Eternity, August 1968,  37 . Bayly’s column ran continuously from October 1961 to October 1986.

Can Our Circular Arguments Deliver Us from Judgment?

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.

My favorite spot in Washington, D.C., is the Lincoln Memorial. I like to visit it at night.

One Sunday night last May, I walked the long steps in the warm darkness, and came out into the great open space before that compassionate white stone, the statue of Mr. Lincoln.

Some oddly garbed students, probably left over from the previous day’s demonstration at the Ellipse,* stood silent before the statue.

On the left-hand wall, carved in stone, is the Gettysburg Address. I walked over to read it. I remembered how my second grade teacher didn’t believe me when I said that my grandmother shook hands with President Lincoln after he spoke. But she did; she was a little girl who lived just outside Gettysburg.

Then I walked to the opposite wall and read his Second Inaugural address. The students were there, reading it.

“‘Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe too Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid with another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

Disturbing words. More disturbing than yesterday’s demonstration . . . Is God concerned with nations, or only with individuals? Is the state—the United States—subject to moral law?

Jesus is coming back. The mess our nation is in doesn’t concern us Christians. We’ll escape all judgment.

But what if that isn’t for 200 years?

Look, the Jew is back in Palestine, there are earthquakes all over the place, wars and rumors of wars. It can’t be 200 years.

What if it is? The Bible is pretty clear that God judges the nations.

That’s Old Testament. And Israel was a theocracy, which the United States isn’t.

A lot of Christians treat our nation’s history as if it were. And react as if critics of the government were touching something unholy.

Well, the Apostle Paul in Romans 13 says that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” So we ought to realize we’re not exactly pleasing God when we criticize our government.

Does that “powers that be” include all government?”

Of course.

Russia and China and Poland? Should Christians in those nations accept what their government does as something holy?

No, because it isn’t. It’s atheistic.

Then our government really is a theocracy.

No, but let’s get back to where judgment is found: in the Old Testament. And there God judged his own nation.

He also judged other nations: Syria and Egypt and Babylon, Edom and city states like Sodom and Gomorrah.

But we’re living in the New Testament age, the age of grace.

Do you mean that God’s different today, that He’s gone soft? Will He let the United States get away with things He didn’t let Egypt or Babylon or Sodom and Gomorrah get away with?

I mean that God deals with individuals today, not nations.

So the United States really is above God’s laws. We Christians can relax whatever happens. Amos isn’t profitable to us for doctrine and rebuke. The United States is even better than a theocracy.—But what about Rome? Its downfall was after the New Testament was written. And France. Russia.

Nations fall, even today.

Even the United States?

Let’s go over to the Jefferson Memorial.

It’s closed for repairs. Sinking into the ground. Do you remember Jefferson’s words? “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just.”

He wasn’t a Christian.

Joseph Bayly, “Out of My Mind,” Eternity, August 1970,  41-42. Bayly’s column ran continuously from October 1961 to October 1986.

*Thursday, April 30, 1970: President Richard Nixon announces that the “Cambodian Incursion” had been launched by U.S. combat forces.  Monday, May 4: Four young people were killed and nine were wounded by gunfire from the U.S. National Guard during a protest at Kent State University. Friday, May 8, New York City: Hard Hat Riot. Saturday, May 9: The demonstration to which Bayly refers, the Kent State/Cambodia Incursion Protest. Sunday, May 9: Bayly makes his visit to the Lincoln Memorial. Click the following links for an NBC audio report on the May 9 protest and for information on the documentary Street Scenes, which focused on the New York riot on May 8 and the protest on May 9.

My big brother John and I were great pals. In fact, our whole family was close, including Mom and Dad, my sister, the brother I’m telling you about, and me. We were close in a way that you find few families today.

Breakfast was always a special time. We sat around this round oak table with a red-checked cloth on it. Mom almost always served the same thing: steaming hot oatmeal with brown sugar cooked in it (we piled a lot more on top of it, too), and milk. A big white pitcher full of milk.

We’d talk about what we were going to do that day, and maybe we’d joke some. Not that we had a lot time—we didn’t, but we had enough to talk some before Dad went off to work and us kids went to school.

John and I were two grades apart in school. That was sort of hard on me, because the teachers who had him were always comparing us when I got into their class. And the comparison wasn’t too flattering to me.

Don’t get me wrong. John wasn’t a teacher’s pet or bookworm. He was a regular guy, and the kids all liked him, including the girls. Maybe one guy who was sort of bully didn’t, but everyone else did.

Life went on like that—breakfast of oatmeal and milk, walk to school, classes, walk home, chores, supper, study around the kitchen table—and you never thought about anything else. Except vacation. Vacation was always stuck in your mind.

You know the kind of life, day after day when it’s so great you hope it never ends. Maybe you cry at night sometimes if you ever think of your Mom or Dad dying—you know they will someday. But then you go to sleep, next to John, who’s already sawing wood.

It was Christmas vacation, when I was in sixth grade and John was in eighth, that it all suddenly came to an end. Actually, it was two days after Christmas.

John and I had gone to ice skate on Big Pond. It was a real cold day, cold enough so that your scarf got ice on it from your breath. I put on my skates in a hurry and sailed out to the middle of the pond.

I thought I noticed a slight cracking sound from the ice, but it wasn’t much and I wasn’t worried. It had been pretty cold for about a week. So I showed off some for John, who was still lacing up his skates, sitting on a log, and then I headed for the opposite shore.

John stood up and went real fast right out to the middle, too. Just as he got there, I heard this sickening cracking noise, the ice broke up, and John fell through.

I got a long branch and went out as far as I could on the ice. But I couldn’t see John anywhere. He had just disappeared. I yelled for him, and I went even farther out, but he just wasn’t there.

I must have panicked, because first thing I knew I was running into the house shouting for Mom, crying my eyes out, yelling that John was in the pond. It was awful.

They found his body later that afternoon.

A few days after the funeral, we were sitting at the table, eating breakfast one morning. Nobody was saying anything, but all of us were thinking about that empty chair over against the wall.

You could tell Mom was trying to talk. Finally she just sort of blurted out, “Look, we all miss John, terribly. We loved—love him, and we’ll always miss him. Now I have suggestion to make. Do you remember how he liked oatmeal and milk?”

“Do I!” I said. “I sure do. He used to pile on the brown sugar until—”

“That’s enough. He liked his oatmeal sweet and so do you. What I want to suggest is this. Let’s think about John every time we eat breakfast. Let’s remember him whenever we eat oatmeal and drink milk. Let’s talk about him—”

“Yeah, like the time he and I went swimming in Big Pond and . . .” I know before Dad spoke that I had said something I shouldn’t have. Everyone was sort of choked up.

“Time for school,” he said. “We can continue this later.”

Well, we did. And we agreed with Mom’s suggestion. So each morning, when that big pitcher of cold milk went on the table, and our bowls of steaming oatmeal were set in front of us, we’d talk about John.

It wasn’t sad talk, but happy. Remembering. I don’t mean we never said anything that made us choke up—other people besides me did. But mainly it was happy talk. And we still talked about what we were going to do that day, and even—after awhile—joked some.

One day, some months later, Mom said, “You know, I don’t think what we’re doing is quite respectful enough for John’s memory.”

“Respectful?” I said. “Why it’s fun. Sometimes it’s almost like John is here with us. I like it.”

“So do I,” Mom said. “But I think we’re too casual about it. So I think we ought to set aside a time when we’re not rushed like we are at breakfast. Let’s say Saturday morning. And we’ll remember John in a more fitting place than the kitchen. We’ll sit in the parlor, and we’ll have a special time worthy of John’s memory.”

“Aw, Mom,” I said. “John always liked breakfast in the kitchen. Lots of oatmeal with plenty of brown sugar on it. And milk. Why make a big deal out of it?”

“That’s enough, son,” Dad said. “We’ll do as your Mother says.”

So every Saturday morning, after we had eaten our regular breakfast in the kitchen, we went into the parlor and remembered John.

Mom had gotten some little silver cups for the milk, and some tiny teaspoons for the oatmeal.

Later we only went into the parlor once a month, instead of every week, and now we only do it every three months. It doesn’t seem right to me, but I’ll soon be leaving home so it doesn’t much matter.

I still wish we had never begun that “fitting” remembrance, and had just kept on remembering John every time we ate breakfast.

Joseph Bayly, “Out of My Mind,” Eternity, May 1973,  45-46. Bayly’s column ran from October 1961 to October 1986.

Alexander Dubček (doob’ chek) figuratively embraces the crowd gathered below him in Wenceslas Square, Prague, Czechoslovakia on November 24, 1989. Later that day the entire leadership of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party resigned, effectively ending Communist rule in the country.

As leader of Czechoslovakia (1968-1969), Alexander Dubček attempted to reform the Communist Party during the Prague Spring of 1968. He was forcibly removed from office in April 1969, following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 and its aftermath. After his dismissal from the Czechoslovakian Communist Party, Dubček worked in the Forestry Service in Slovakia.

Dubček reappeared 20 years later as a supporter of the Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution. He was elected Chairman of the Federal Assembly (the Czechoslovak Parliament) and was reelected to this post in 1990 and 1992. Dubček (b. November 27, 1921) died on November 7, 1992 due to injuries sustained in a car crash on September 1 that same year.

Bibliography:
Dubcek, Alexander. Hope Dies Last: The Autobiography of Alexander Dubcek. Edited and translated by Jiri Hochman. New York: Kodansha, 1993.

Snowcross, William. Dubcek, revised and updated. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.