Truth Magazine

By Tom Hamilton

Shinto is not a religious system in the usual sense that we tend to think of. It has no founder, no sacred scriptures (such as the Bible or the Koran), and no organization. From a biblical perspective, it has no system of ethical or moral instruction, no absolute right or wrong, no concept of sin and salvation, and no concern for a life after death. This is why most Shinto believers are also Buddhists; Buddhism supplies the religious answers to these issues which are not part of Shinto thought. Shinto is more of a philosophy of living, a way of doing things and thinking of things that pervades Japanese life. Even in a society that is becoming increasingly modern and agnostic, Shinto still is the dominant influence as subconscious, rather than conscious. This may be compared to present day American values, which used to be based upon a biblical foundation, but are now detached from it. On the conscious level, there is no reason for Americans to embrace the values they believe in, but on the subconscious level it is obviously due to the direct influence of our past Judeo-Christian heritage, ethics and religious values. So also in Japan, Shinto is at the very core of the Japanese person’s attitude toward life, his way of thinking and living.

This is not surprising when one recognizes that Shinto is the native religion of Japan, existing even before the historical events recorded concerning the beginning of Japan. When history tells us of the formation of Japanese society and civilization, Shinto already existed – Japan’s form of the world-wide, natural expression of man’s yearning for God. Shinto means “the way of the kami, ” who are spirits or divine beings which are not really adequately translated as “gods.” Shinto is at heart a crude and rather primitive form of naturalistic polytheism, believing in many kami or spirits who reside within or control various natural elements: the sun, trees, mountains, storms, farm fields, etc. Almost everything in nature, especially anything living and active, possesses a kami. Shinto is the unorganized worship of these spirits; Shinto is a mixed collection of common beliefs which were the Japanese people’s crude attempts to explain the relationship of man’s human nature to the living forces of the natural world in which he lived and upon which his life depended.

Shinto, like every other polytheistic religion, has its complex. myths and legends about the various major kami, their origins, histories, powers, great deeds, etc. These are especially reminiscent of the stories told about the gods of Greek mythology, with which we are more familiar. Like the gods of Greco-Roman society, the kami are really made in the image of man, with their own shortcomings, weaknesses, “sins,” and even deaths. This is the result of a people who yearn for God, but do so in ignorance and deception (Rom. 1:18-23). Shrines were built all over Japan, especially where a particular kami was thought to reside, and the kami’s presence is enshrined there. Pilgrimages are regularly made to shrines by millions of people each year, when prayers are offered and other rituals, particularly water purification, are practiced.

The kami have mysterious creating and harmonizing powers, which places an emphasis on peace and harmony. All of the kami cooperate with each other, and Shinto likewise expresses the desire to peacefully coexist with other world religions. The kami express their will, otherwise referred to as the truthful way, and make it known to devoted, sincere followers who ask for guidance in similarly truthful and sincere prayers. One is able to discern the will of the katni by thoughtful, genuine attempts at understanding “truth” as it relates to a particular situation. The more pure and sincere one is, the more perfectly he can discern the will of the kami and thereby live the most pleasant life possible. When one lives in accordance with the expressed will of the kami, one gains the approval, cooperation, and protection of every kami. Therefore, great emphasis is placed upon “sincerity” and “purity of heart,” which is the sincere attitude of mind which causes one to do his best in a particular situation, and thereby approach the ideal of the kami or a more perfect communion or fellowship with the kami. Man himself is the image and offspring of the kami and realizes his full potential and greatest happiness by being kami-like. Also, since all men are the offspring of kami, each individual is worthy of proper respect. Each must respect the rights of others, and each must live up to his social duties and obligations to others.

Shinto is unconcerned with any concept of life after death and teaches that the world will continue eternally. Man must not be concerned with the past or the future, but only the present. He is a single individual, whose duty is to be a link in the continuing history of man, which passes from one generation to the next. Therefore, rather than being concerned with death, salvation from sin, hell/eternal condemnation, heaven/eternal reward, or any future and other worldly concepts, man should concern himself with his present circumstances and how he can be most happy within such circumstances. Accordingly, Shinto also has no system of true moral values and no basis of authority for determining absolutes of right and wrong. Basically, Shinto’s moral values are situational ethics. “Truth” or “sincerity” is doing your best under the circumstances of a particular situation, and if you fail it is due to a lack of complete knowledge or understanding, and imperfect communion with the kami to have clearly apprehended his will. Sin or evil is not a corruption of the heart or man’s will, but the exercise of poor judgment or the lack of proper awareness. It is merely an impurity, much like dust, which must be washed away at regular intervals. This problem is one which should cause shame, but hardly one in which there is guilt. In regard to all of these basic tenets of Shinto, anyone familiar with Japanese society can recognize the manifestation of these beliefs, whether consciously or subconsciously, in the distinctive attitudes, customs, and lifestyles of the Japanese people.

Obviously, Shinto is commendable (as is almost any religion) for some of its good advice and some of the virtues which it teaches. Many Americans would do well to learn the lessons of responsibility, selflessness, and social obligation which the Japanese have learned so well. But as a system of religion, moral instruction, and the other major aspects that we usually think of when we say “religion,” Shinto has serious weaknesses. Those who believe in Shinto clearly concede this when the vast majority find it necessary to turn to Buddhism for the answers which are lacking in Shinto. Therefore, in regard to Japanese religious beliefs, one must not only be prepared to confront Shinto, but Buddhist doctrine as well.

In dealing with the problems of Shinto itself, it should be very helpful for us to recognize that the form of naturalistic polytheism which Shinto exhibits is little different from the same form of paganism which Paul and the other early Christians confronted throughout the Mediterranean world in the first century. The myths and legends concerning the gods are similar. The multitude of gods behind every natural force or object is the same. The lack of any systematic, organized paganism is parallel; the Greek loosely held common beliefs, built temples to various gods from place to place, with each city and household having their patron god or goddess. The absence of any founder, sacred scriptures, or true moral instruction is identical. All of these striking parallels should not surprise us; such are simply the natural result of what happens when man tries to satisfy his common, world-wide urge to seek after God when he is ignorant of the true God and self-deceived. And one could take no better approach to discrediting this philosophy of life than that which Paul used, as represented in Acts 17:16-34.

1. There is one true God (Acts 17:24). “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth.” There is one God who created everything, and through creation he displays his eternal power and divine nature (Rom. 1:18-20).

2. This God is all-sufficient (Acts 17:24-25). “. . . does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things. ” This God possesses no such limitations as man does. God does not need man; man needs God (Isa. 66:1-2). Everything else is secondary and subordinate to God (Eph. 1:15-23).

3. This God is all powerful and authoritative (Acts 17:26-27). . and He made from one, every nation of mankind . that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ” This God created man for a purpose, which man had better fulfill. Man must respect the authority of God and submit to his will which has been clearly revealed to us (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

4. This God is all divine (Acts 17:29)- “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. ” This God is not subject to the whims, interpretations, wisdom, or imperfect reasoning of man. He is not the product of man’s imagination. God is not in the image of man, but man is to be in the image of God (Col. 3:1-11; 2 Pet. 1:2-11).

5. This God is all righteous (Acts 17:30-31). “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to man that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness.” This God is perfectly moral and righteous, and he expects such of his offspring. There is a judgment day appointed; there is a future to be concerned about; there is a need for salvation from sin; there is an absolute basis upon which to discern right and wrong, a basis upon which we will be judged (Acts 10:42-43; Rom. 3:21-28; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 12:44-50).

The way of the gods is vain, deceptive, decadent, powerless, and immoral (Rom. 1:18-32). The gods are mute, deaf, and impotent (Isa. 44:920). Shinto truly does mean “the way of the gods, ” but sadly, what the Japanese and others who are being touched by their culture need to know is “The Way of God” which is true and living (Jn. 14:6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 10, pp. 314-316
May 17, 1990

By James W. Adams

In a small city where I used to live and work, there was a stately old church building on the outskirts of the downtown area which had been for many years the meeting house of the “First Christian Church.” On a marble plaque imbedded in its cornerstone was, among other things, the following statement: “Dedicated to the Restoration of New Testament Christianity.” It so happens that this particular Christian Church was of the most liberal variety of that communion, hence endorsed every human innovation that characterizes such churches. Every time I passed the building, I would laugh while holding back tears and wisely stifle the impulse to get hammer and chisel and forever erase the callous joke!

Humans, being what they are, weak and fallible, have ever been at odds with themselves over profession and practice in religion. It is so much easier to profess than to practice. Jesus noted this in the Jews of his time. He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say and do not” (Matt. 23:2).

The ludicrous contradiction between the statement on the cornerstone of the First Christian Church (previously noted) and the practice of the people who met in the building constituted a living monument to the victory of practice over profession and the tragic death of a worthy ideal. However, let us not to be too quick to point the finger of accusation at others. Our “liberal,” or if they prefer, our “institutional” brethren, profess yet to be in faith and practice identical as churches with the congregations of the apostolic period. They profess to possess, without addition, subtraction, or substitution, all the God-approved characteristics of the churches one reads about in the New Testament. In the light of their profession, they are obligated to answer some pertinent questions concerning their practices. The following was suggested by and is a take-off on an article which appeared in the Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell’s publication, September 1844, by J.B.F., and entitled “The Baptists. ” In answer to these questions which follow, we respectfully request that said brethren cite instances from the New Testament which verify their replies.

Did apostolic churches admit into their fellowships and recognize as true disciples unimmersed persons or persons who had not been “baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)? Did they acknowledge them as “brethren in prospect”? Did they recognize as “brethren” and eat the Lord’s supper with the unimmersed? (I recently heard of a church in a large Texas city, not only doing this, but using such to help administer the Lord’s supper by passing the bread and fruit of the vine to the congregation. jwa) Did they employ mechanical instruments of music in their worship, or employ them in their classrooms and “fellowship halls” to enhance the teaching or “fellowship” (social entertainment) activities? Did apostolic churches acquiesce and participate in a “cooperation” of many churches in which a single congregation became the overseeing, activating, and controlling agency, through its elders, of general works of evangelism, edification, and/or benevolence? Did they in such “cooperations” release to the “sponsoring church” their funds to be controlled and applied by said sponsoring church in the accomplishment of the works undertaken? Did apostolic churches “build and maintain” with “church funds” institutions, independent of the churches, and governed by boards of directors, not of necessity amenable to the supporting congregations, to implement the cooperation of said churches in general evangelism, edification, and/or benevolence? Did apostolic churches, in their corporate capacity, assume responsibility for and alleviate the physical needs of indigent persons in the world community from the corporate funds of the local churches gathered by collections from their members in their assemblies? Did apostolic churches address themselves in their corporate capacity to the social entertainment of their members and others as an edificational or evangelistic device?

A tyro in Bible knowledge knows that the New Testament affords not one shred of evidence, either in the form of precept, command, approved example, or necessary inference, of such in the faith and practice of apostolic churches. Therefore, from whence and how did they come? “They came in like the frogs and mice of Egypt – by creeping. This is how every other human invention has been introduced into the great Babel, now claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ. Let the honest-hearted answer, reflect, and reform.” I could not have said it better than this brother of almost one hundred fifty years ago expressed it. He practically, though speaking of “the Baptists” of his time, donned the robe of a prophet with reference to future developments among the churches professing to be dedicated to the restoration of primitive, New Testament Christianity.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, pp. 321, 343
June 7, 1990

By Ken McLemore

The story is told, possibly of brother J.D. Tant, that some years ago when he had returned home from an extended gospel meeting a brother asked the preacher’s evaluation of the meeting. Brother Tant is said to have replied that it was one of the best meetings he had conducted all year, to which the question was asked of how many baptisms and restorations had occurred. Brother Tant promptly replied, “None.” The amazed brother then inquired why the meeting was thought to be so successful. The evangelist is said to have replied, “Well, we withdrew from 12 ungodly members.”

The story appears to illustrate a common attitude of many that gospel preachers are in the business of “selling the gospel” or simply gaining numbers for the sake of having great numbers. The fruits born of the power of the gospel are not limited to the first fruits of obedience, but necessarily include the fruits of maturity as well (Gal. 5:22-23). If a gospel preacher teaches sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3), avoids foolish teaching (1 Tim. 4:6-7), gives himself to study of the word (1 Tim. 4:13), exposes error (1 Tim. 6:3-5), gives diligence to properly handle truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and defends the word of truth (2 Tim. 3:16-4:5), he will produce “results” from such preaching that maynot garner great numbers but will save souls.

What many brethren forget today is that the “honest and good heart” of Luke 8:15 which Christ said was proper soil for the seed of truth can still be affected by truth, but in many places the New Testament church no longer demands the kind of preaching which will “cut to the heart” of the alien sinner or the apostate saint. Too many brethren are busy “selling the gospel” rather than “preaching” it. There is a vast difference.

The apostle Paul would have not been a productive “salesman” by some modern standards of gospel preaching which rely purely upon, popular appeal and eloquence rather than a hard appeal to truth. The apostle declared in 2 Corinthians 11:6, “But though (I be) rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.” And, by some estimates of certain kinds of current thinking which equates “results” in preaching with gathering great numbers, Christ should have quit teaching when in John 6:66 the record declares, “From that time many of his disciples went back and walked with Him no more”!

We wonder as well if spiritual maturity is a “result” of gospel preaching? Did Paul and Barnabas produce “results” when they were “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith,” and had taught the brethren in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch so that they had the maturity to appoint elders to the oversight in those churches (Acts 14:21-23)? Paul declares to Titus, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Tit. 1:5). We might ask, what “result” was Titus to “produce” in preaching the gospel in Crete? To Timothy, Paul directs in 2 Timothy 2:2, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” Again, what “result” was Timothy to “produce” in preaching the gospel? In Matthew 28:19-20, Christ himself commanded the apostles to teach and then teach again; first, teaching the sinner how to be saved from sin and, then, teaching the new disciple how to mature spiritually. If we accomplish both are we producing “results”? If we accomplish one or the other, are we producing “results”?

Some brethren seem to have forgotten that an evangelist must defend the truth and expose error while seeking the souls of the lost; and, careful study of 2 Timothy 3 and 4:1-5 will show that. Will such preaching “produce results”? Did Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that the Corinthian brethren were to “purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump” produce a “result”?

In Acts 13:46, Paul told the Jews that they had judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.” Nobody was baptized, but did Paul produce “results, ” or was he a poor “salesman” who needed to move on because he showed no “results”? Should Paul have taken stock and decided that he ought to quit preaching because he was a “poor salesman”? If Paul was interested merely in attracting numbers of people, he would not have been so adamant about the fact that he baptized so few at Corinth when he rebuked the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14-17).

The obedience of the twelve men of Ephesus inActs 19 would be a monumental “result” for a single effort today. However, those twelve conversions paled in mere number against the 3,000 of the day of Pentecost, but did that negate the power of the truth, or somehow prove that Paul was less an apostle than those who preached to the Jews?

What so often seems to be forgotten today in the rush to gain numbers for the sake of numbers is what Paul declared in 2 Corinthians 2:17, that, “we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, pp. 323-324
June 7, 1990

By Hayse Reneau

It is disturbing to see and to contemplate the rapid digression of churches who claim to be of Christ. Beginning with small steps it quickly moved by leaps and bounds from the fifties through the eighties, leaving in its wake a torn and bleeding brotherhood.

Several years before the division-causing innovations were introduced there were some brethren bent on imitating the denominations, who were “waiting in the wings” for a convenient season to make their proposals. The division over societies and mechanical music in worship were remembered and some hearts were still sobbing, so the hesitation could be expected. Finally a generation arose who were untaught in the essentials of abiding in the doctrine of Christ, and who were gullible enough to swallow the bait. Originally, the proposal was to add the colleges into church budgets. The momentary objections were greater than anticipated so it was put on hold. The so-called Orphanages were then introduced and accepted. The emotional overtones of stories about little babies being cast out of their homes, neglected, bruised, hungry and naked caused many to ignore scriptural precedent of how the first century churches accomplished their work of benevolence. Now, there were no legitimate and logical objections, from those who had already accepted the orphanages, to colleges also being put in the church budget (they were told “they stand or fall together”), so they were summarily accepted. It was an immoral and deceitful strategy but it worked.

Homes for the elderly, institutions for unwed mothers, soup lines and kitchens for the hungry, and many more social programs rapidly followed and were included in church budgets. Next came the bus fleets, and the youth ministers, who plan and bus children on ski trips, busing children to six flags, and various other recreational outings. “Family life centers” are a measure of their prosperity. Equipped with the latest exercise equipment, TVs, ping pong tables, and other entertainment features, these churches are really “on the move.”

The sponsoring church concept has linked local churches into national and even international ties with like-minded churches. The formation of a full-blown ecclesiastic system of religion, known as “churches of Christ,” is concreted in place and no one or nothing will change it to any great degree. I was told, “We are no longer ashamed to invite someone to join our church!”

Many churches today are plainly no more than denominations bearing the designation “church of Christ.” It is disastrous to souls for whom Christ died. I want to observe some of the attitudes which promote such digressions.

When there is a decreased emphasis on a “Thus saith the Lord,” people eventually give no thought whether a practice is scriptural (revealed in the Scriptures) or unscriptural. This promotes an uncaring attitude for what God says. I can remember when churches who had the funds to publish a bulletin, filled those pages with Bible-centered lessons. I can also remember when those pages were filled with social activities offered to the members and seldom do you find a Bible quoted. The word of God still admonishes “If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God,” and “Preach the word” (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:2).

An increasing spirit of materialism and secularism promoted the various social enterprises which serve as entertainment for the body while souls dry and wither. Choosing a church for many is based upon finding one which offers the most entertainment. Romans 14:17 emphasizes the church established by the Lord is for the spiritual nature of man, and not meat and drink (physical items).

Vanity is an attitude promoting competitiveness with denominationalism. Meeting houses take on a cathedral look: stained glass and steeples, etc. Such things are pointed to with pride, as if it is a measure of God’s approval. Vanity cultivates an attitude of prominence and improper self-esteem. Such has led to a substitution of human plans and programs and all manner of promotional machinery, replacing God’s way which is plainly revealed in the Bible.

The Word of God insists: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen ” (1 Pet. 4:11). Beloved, no man speaks according to God’s oracles while harboring such attitudes which have brought such misery and harm to the cause of Christ!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 329
June 7, 1990