THE SERVANT DISOBEDIENT
In my first chapter I gave a brief account of the Kumamoto Band, their
conversion and dedication, persecution, and victory, how they came to
Dr. Neeshima’s school, how they went out again, preaching the Gospel
and founding Congregational churches in all parts of Japan, and how
this band was mightily used by God for establishing a testimony to
Christ in my country. So far I have told the good part of this story.
But now I must turn to my own part in it, because I am to tell you the
story of my own Christian life. But when I turn to my own part I am
sorry to say that I cannot give the good part only, but I must give the
bad part too. I was not a good boy, as some of my friends were, working
faithfully during half a century. I was a backsliding, prodigal son of
my Heavenly Father for many years. My life was shipwrecked on the rocks
of doubt and unbelief. I have nothing to glory of, but only to confess
my sins and failures. It is not a pleasant thing for a man to speak
of his own sins and failings. But I think it is our duty as Christians
to confess our sins to one another. So I here wish to discharge that
first duty, and, if possible, warn my young friends who are in danger
of treading the same path, and falling into the same pit I did.
I was the first one of the Kumamoto Band who came to Doshisha
University, in the summer of 1876. There was not a single building on
the whole University campus, so I was connected with that school from
its very foundation. Also I was a member of the first graduating class,
of 1879. After graduating from this school, I went down to the Province
of Okayama as a missionary. I had no money, no salary, no help. As
Christ told us, I went to a worthy man, who fed and clothed me for the
first year of my ministry. There was an American Board mission station
in Okayama, and I worked in connection with it, and after a year there
sprang up a Congregational church of about fifty members, and I became
its first pastor, receiving three dollars and a half for a month’s
salary. But our work was very much blessed. Besides the central church
there sprang up many other churches all around, and this province
became one of the strongest centers of the Christian world in Japan.
Then I was called back by Dr. Neeshima to his school as a professor of
theology. So I came back to my alma mater and assisted Dr. Neeshima in
teaching, and also in the work of the presidency. So, you see, at first
even I was doing some good work for the cause of Christ. I was regarded
as one of the most promising Christian workers of the country at the
time.
Now comes my bad turn. During my stay in Doshisha University, as a
professor of theology I read many books on that subject. Among them
were the books of German New Theology and the Higher Criticism. To me,
brought up in almost Puritan strictness of doctrine and practise, their
easy and free way of handling the Word of God and interpreting the
doctrines of the Bible was so interesting and fascinating that I was
completely carried away by their cunning argument. And my positions in
orthodox theology were thrown down, one after another, by those fiery
doubts shot from the camp of New Theology. I thought I was standing
on the rocks of orthodox theology, but now those very rocks themselves
seemed to melt under the heat of modern criticism.
Finally I became a convert to this new doctrine, and its devout
follower. Not only that, but I became a very zealous propagandist.
I began to propagate the new doctrine in preaching and writing. I
translated Dr. Pfleiderer’s “Philosophy of Religion” into Japanese,
under the title of “The Liberal Theology.” He was the professor of
theology in Berlin University, and was regarded as one of the foremost
scholars of New Theology of the day. I myself wrote a book called
“Present and Future Christianity of Japan.” In this book I prophesied
that, though the present Christianity of Japan was orthodox, the future
Christianity would be a liberal one. Some liberals say that prophecy
has been fulfilled, but I hope not. At any rate, I am sorry to say that
this book has led astray many young friends, but I am happy to say that
it is out of print now. This book made some stir in the Christian world
of Japan at the time.
In those days all the Congregational churches were orthodox and
evangelical. Of course, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the
Episcopalians, and the Baptists were thoroughgoing orthodox, and
Congregational ministers were the zealous defenders of the orthodox
faith. I was looked at as a very dangerous heretic, and was almost
excommunicated. I could not conscientiously stay in the orthodox
church, since my theology so greatly differed from theirs, and so I
left the Congregational church in order to make my position clear to
the world; but when I left the church I left the Christian ministry
also.
I wish to call special attention to this point: Why did I leave the
ministry when I left the Congregational church? Because, in the first
place, my New Theology and Higher Criticism had destroyed my faith in
the perfect, divine authority of the Bible; and in the second place,
they had destroyed my faith in the perfect deity of Christ. When I had
lost these two things I had lost everything. I could not preach Christ
alone, and him crucified. I could preach Christian theism, Christian
morality, and Christian sociology. In fact, I could preach all the
practical side of Christianity, but not the central fundamental truths
of Christianity, Christ and his salvation through the cross.
In those days there were many liberals who were saying, “You may have
your own theology in your study, but retain the commonly accepted
Christian doctrine in the pulpit. There is no need of entering into the
discussion of theological questions in the pulpit, because it is for
the common people, and not for the scholars.”
But I said: “I cannot use two theologies in my ministry, one for
myself, and the other for the people. I cannot handle the Word of God
in such a double-handed way. What I have learned in my study that I
will preach in my pulpit.”
But such was quite the common practise among the liberals of those
days. Not only in those days, but even now, there are many liberals
who are practising these worldly counsels of handling the Word of God
cunningly and deceitfully. They are proclaiming from their pulpits, not
the salvation of souls by the blood of Christ, but only what they call
social salvation, moral uplift, and world reconstruction by the example
of Jesus of Nazareth, thus hiding their skeptical theology and agnostic
philosophy under the cloak of practical Christianity.
Some liberal churches invited me to come to their side and help
to spread the liberal Christianity in Japan. But I declined all
invitations. I thought if social reform and moral uplift are the only
work of the Christian ministry, and not the salvation of souls by the
blood of Christ, there is no need of my staying in it any longer. Such
social service could be rendered out of it just as well, if not better.
So I left the ministry, and joined a politico-social reform campaign
in my country. Now I became a political and social reformer, and in
this capacity spent more than twenty years. Thus I squandered away the
best portion of my life in unprofitable worldly pursuit; thus my life
was shipwrecked in the midst of my life-work, and thus I turned away
from Jesus Christ, whom I had found seventeen years before in such a
wonderful manner, and to whom I had pledged my allegiance at the top
of the Mount of Flowers. The purpose of the Devil, which could not be
accomplished by bitter persecution, had been now accomplished by the
help of the New Theology and Higher Criticism. This is the Devil’s way
of working. When he cannot gain his object by sword or fire, he resorts
to an entirely different method.
Now let me tell how the study of Higher Criticism and New Theology
destroyed my evangelical faith, and what a baneful influence they
exerted upon my spiritual life, and how they finally dragged me down
to the depths of doubt and unbelief. But before going farther, I must
explain what I call Higher Criticism and New Theology.
When I addressed a body of theological students in a certain seminary
where the New Theology and Higher Criticism are being taught now, I
told them plainly what havoc this New Theology and Higher Criticism
have made in my Christian life, and how they are sapping the very life
of the Christian churches at present, and I warned them sincerely
against this misleading, dangerous teaching.
After the address, one of the professors who heard me came and
asked, “What do you mean by ‘Higher Criticism’? Do you mean by it
the destructive Higher Criticism only, or do you include even the
constructive Higher Criticism?”
I answered him: “I don’t know. It is very difficult to draw a line
between ‘destructive’ and ‘constructive’ in the so-called modern
Higher Criticism. But all criticism which destroys faith in the
perfect, divine authority of the Bible I call Higher Criticism, and
all theological teaching which destroys belief in the perfect deity of
Jesus Christ I call New Theology.”
These are the definitions of these two terms which I use in this
book. Of course there are all grades of Higher Criticism and New
Theology, ranging from the mildest, almost touching the border line
of evangelical faith, down to the very deadliest, which never ceases
blaspheming Christ and the Holy Scriptures; but whether they are mild
or extreme, these doctrines are a real poison to the Christian faith.
Not only did I almost kill my spiritual life by absorbing such poisons
into my own system, but also by introducing such poisons into the
Japanese churches, I did great damage to the cause of Christ in my
country.
A friend has asked me whether I still feel the evil effects of the
study of such books on my spiritual life.
I answered him, “Yes. If you once absorb poison into your system it is
very hard to get entirely rid of the evil.”
He also asked me whether it is wise for one to read such books in
order to know our opponents’ positions.
“Yes,” I said. “Sometimes it is necessary for us to study books of this
kind in order to find out their fallacies and untruths.”
But even then we must be very careful not to be poisoned ourselves.
It is sometimes necessary for the student of chemistry to enter the
chemical laboratory and handle deadly poisons, in order to make
important experiments, but at such times the student must take as
perfect precaution as possible not to take the poison into his own body
and die.
In the same way, when you are going to make experiments with these
poisonous doctrines of the enemy of the Gospel, you must take perfect
precautions not to absorb their poisons, as I did. Moreover, I like
to caution my orthodox brothers and sisters against handling these
poisonous books except under the urgent necessity of making important
experiments. Though we have to provide deadly poisons in our chemical
laboratories for the purpose of experiments, it is not at all necessary
or advisable to put them in our kitchens and dining-rooms; no, it is
not wise to handle them too often.
However, I am not going to discuss at present the question of New
Theology. I am simply going to show you how baneful and destructive was
its influence upon my own spiritual life. That is all I intend to do
here.
Some of the professors of New Theology said to me, after hearing my
lecture, “You have the facts which no theory can refute.” Yes, I have
the facts, or rather I myself am the fact, and I am going to give this
fact, and not theory, or argument. Now let me proceed to tell the
processes and steps by which these studies destroyed my evangelical
faith.
I was a lover of the Bible. I loved it and revered it as the Word of
God. I was converted by reading the Bible. I believed the Bible was
the Word of God, given by the Holy Spirit through the holy men of old;
that the Bible contained truth only, and no error. The Holy Spirit
cannot be the author of error. God cannot make mistakes. I believed,
therefore, that all the historical facts of the Bible were true facts,
and all the biographical narratives true narratives, and not made up by
men, and all the Biblical heroes true persons, and not fabulous ones.
I believed that its doctrines and teachings were all true, good, and
perfect and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.” In fact, I believed that the Bible was
a perfect revelation of the will and wisdom and love of God, that we
have only to dig into it and find out the precious truth of its deep
meaning, and honor it by belief and obedience. If I found any difficult
passage in the Bible, which I could not understand, or reconcile with
my reason, I always put the blame of the doubt upon my own imperfect
intellect, and believed that the Bible was all right, though I could
not understand it. Thus I believed in the absolute divine authority of
the Bible, and on this divine Book, as on the rock of ages, I built my
faith in Christianity as the absolute religion. Not _a_ religion, but
_the_ religion of the world.
Now came the higher critics and said, “No,” to all of these my beliefs
in the Bible. In the first place, they said, “the Bible is not the Word
of God, given through the Holy Spirit, in any such sense as you have
believed. The Bible is a book written by men, just as all other books
are written. Therefore the words contained in it are not the words of
God himself, but the words of men, perhaps pious men, good men, devout
men, and religiously-minded men. But they are all men and nothing more.
And as all men are liable to make mistakes, and are apt to invent
stories, and manufacture the facts, so the Bible contains many untrue
narratives, and made-up stories. Many of the historical personages of
the Bible are imaginary heroes and not true persons. Moreover, the
doctrines propounded in the Bible are not all sound doctrines. Some
are quite unsound. The teachings of the Bible are not all wise and
profitable, and some are not applicable to modern times at all. They
may have been good enough in the dark ages of the ancient world, but
are not suitable to this modern age. So the Bible does not contain
truth only, but it contains error also.
“In fact, the Bible is a mixture of truth and error, good and bad,
wise and unwise. It contains myths, legends, and fables, just as all
the so-called sacred books of the world religions contain such a
mixture. The Bible must in many cases be interpreted allegorically
and figuratively, deducing only moral and spiritual lessons. You must
not swallow everything in the Bible as true, but must make careful
discrimination. You must separate what is true from what is untrue,
and what is good from what is bad. You must search and find out for
yourself what part of the Biblical history is authentic, and what part
of it is not, who are the true persons, and who are the imaginary ones,
using reason and common sense, just as when reading all other books
written by men.” This is what I was taught by Higher Criticism and New
Theology.
According to my orthodox faith I had looked upon the Bible as the
perfect, revealed Word of God, and as a supreme Judge sitting on the
bench giving an infallible judgment upon all matters pertaining to the
spiritual as well as the moral welfare of man. This judgment I had
looked upon as final, with no one to dispute it. I sat before the Bible
as a client or petitioner waiting for a final decision.
Now came Higher Criticism and turned everything upside down and said,
“No, you are not the petitioner, you yourself are the judge. You must
sit upon the bench of the supreme judge and pronounce your judgment
upon the contents of the Bible, as to whether it is true or untrue,
good or bad, applicable or inapplicable. The Bible, as all other
books, must become a petitioner before you, and your reason.”
So you see the Bible was in this way dragged down from the seat of the
supreme judge to the place of the petitioner, and man with his reason
and common sense was exalted to the seat of the judge.
What authority can such a Bible have over a man when he has to choose
from its contents whatever seems good or suitable for his purpose, and
whatever does not seem so he has a right to discard? Do you think such
a Bible can command us to “meditate therein day and night,” and “turn
not from it to the right hand or to the left”? What becomes of those
precious promises of God in the Bible if they are not the word of God
in a true and exact sense? In the Old and New Testaments there are more
than thirty thousand promises, and they have been life and joy and
strength to Christians for nineteen centuries. But if these are not
really the promises given by God himself, but only the opinions and
conjectures of human beings, how can we trust them? Do you think we can
build the absolute religion of the world upon so fickle and unstable a
foundation as this? The Bible of the Higher Critics is not rock, but
sand, and a house built upon it must fall, and great will be the fall
thereof.
Now they have dragged the Bible down to the level of the sacred
writings of other world religions, such as the sacred books of the
Brahmans, the legendary stories of Shakamuni, the Koran of Mohammed,
and others. The religion of the Bible must then become one of these
world religions founded by men. So Christianity also must share the
fate of all other religions of the world. Once you have dragged
Christianity down to a level with other religions of the world, you
cannot save it alone amidst the wholesale destruction of all these
superstitious world religions by the fires of modern civilization.
And I believe the sooner they are destroyed the better it will be for
mankind. And Christianity, according to New Theology, must share their
fate sooner or later.
In Christian lands we see many who, while embracing such destructive
views of the Bible and Christianity, are yet holding on to Christian
practise, not as a result of their own thinking, but as a result
of time-honored customs, life-long habits, and early training and
education in the Christian homes, Christian institutions, and
Christian society in which they were brought up. They are like men
who, when thrown into a deep well, instead of going down straight to
the bottom, cling to the stony sides, or hold on to the ropes, and
so are prevented from dropping at once to the bottom. But Christians
newly converted, in a heathen land, having no such Christian homes
or institutions to cling to, when thrown into the well of doubt and
unbelief, will go straight to the bottom. We are standing only upon our
own thinking, and if that thinking goes wrong, we shall fall at once
and be drowned.
At least I fell to the bottom. I could not hang on the walls midway. I
did not hesitate to declare in my book that if Christianity is one of
the religions of the world, like Buddhism and Mohammedanism, then it
must share the common fate of all these religions. They may have been
all right, and have done their work in their own time and in their
own field, but now they will not be able to withstand the test of
the twentieth century civilization. In this melting pot of twentieth
century civilization all the world religions will be melted together
and a new religion, which is neither Buddhism nor Christianity, neither
Brahmanism nor Mohammedanism, but which discards all the bad, and
retains only the good, of those religions, will arise. In fact, a new
eclectic religion will arise out of the chaos of the old religions of
the world.
You may say, perhaps, that this is an arrogant and extravagant position
to take. Yes, it is arrogant and extravagant, but it is the natural and
logical conclusion to which Higher Criticism and New Theology will lead
their devout followers in heathen lands. There are many such now, but
they do not express their skeptical position as plainly and bluntly as
I have done here.
It is a common saying among the educated heathen that all religions
have the same goal, and are like the mountain paths leading up to the
same top. Some go up from the east, and others from the west, some go
up from the north, and others from the south, but they all lead you to
the same top, and when you get there you find no difference; whichever
path you have taken you are at last at the top of the mountain and
enjoying the fine view. If that is so, may it not be better to destroy
all the crooked old narrow paths, and build one new, good road, on
which people can drive their automobiles up to the very top?
Even though Higher Criticism and New Theology may not lead you to such
a radical conclusion as this, yet they will certainly do away with
the claims of the Christian religion to be the only true religion
of the world, and will make it only one of the world religions. If
Christianity has to exist in this world side by side with all other
religions, possessing only one portion of humanity, while conceding the
rest of it to other religions, it can never claim absolute allegiance
from the people of the whole world.
According to the New Theology the work of foreign missions is not to
convert the heathen, nor to save them from sin and error, but only to
introduce Christianity to them as one of the religions of the world.
I heard some liberal missionaries making such statements as this when
they were preaching in heathen lands: “We missionaries did not come
to you to ask you to throw away your own good religion which you have
believed in for so many centuries, and to be converted to our religion,
but we came here simply to unite the good in our religion with the good
in yours. The good in your religion we Christians desire to learn,
but Christianity also has good teachings which would certainly be of
profit to you. So we missionaries have come to unite the best in all
religions for the upbuilding of common humanity, not to impose our
religion upon you, and make you give up your own religion.” These men
call themselves modern missionaries, and are entirely different from
the old ones who went to heathen lands to convert the people, and to
save them from sin. They call the earlier missionaries old-fashioned,
out of date. But if this is true, these new missionaries are not the
messengers of God, but religious traders, and religious trade is not a
profitable thing at all. I am afraid if such is the case the missionary
enterprise will cease to exist, and the heathen world will be left in
darkness and sin.
The New Theology says again, “Oh, don’t bother about the Bible too
much. We don’t care nowadays whether men believe in the inspiration
of the Bible or not, or what kind of inspiration they hold, total or
partial, verbal or moral. One man believes the Bible contains truth and
no error. Another man thinks it contains both truth and error. We don’t
care about those things. To be too much concerned with these things
was the old-fashioned religious belief. Christianity does not stand
on the inspiration of the Bible. It stands on the unique personality
of Christ. As long as we hold on to Christ there is no danger for
Christianity.”
Very well; it may be so. Christ is our sure foundation. Christianity
must stand on this rock of ages. But may I ask a question here? Who is
this Christ? Who is this unique personality on which you try to stand
as on the sure foundation? Is Christ God, or man? Is he the second
person of the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father himself?
Is he “the only begotten” Son of God, who was in the bosom of the
Father from “before the foundation of the world,” and who came down to
this world and became flesh himself in order to save this lost world?
Is he the Word of God who was “in the beginning,” and “was with God,”
and who was God himself, and by whom all things were made, and “without
him was not anything made that was made”? In a word, is Christ the
Creator or a creature, infinite or finite?
To these blunt questions New Theology has no other answer than “No!”
Christ, according to New Theology, is not God, but man. He is not the
Creator, but a creature. He is not infinite, but finite. He may be a
godly man, or a man filled with God, or the Spirit of God, but still
man, and not God. He may be the greatest, wisest, and holiest man among
men, but still he is a man, and not God. New Theology may exalt Christ
as high as possible. It can never exalt him to the throne of God.
Between God and man there is an infinite distance, and no goodness or
greatness or holiness of mere man can ever bridge this distance. If you
look up from the plains below to the top of a very high mountain, you
see its peaks almost touching heaven, or kissing the blue sky above,
but if you climb the mountain and stand on that summit you find the
distance between the mountain top and the blue heaven above is just as
great as when you were standing on the plain below. Though a man could
ever attain to such a height of greatness, holiness, and goodness as to
seem to the common eyes almost beside God himself, yet in reality he is
as far from God as we common folks are.
But men are not a whit nearer to God by their own greatness and
goodness, so you see that though New Theology may exalt Christ as high
as it can, yet it cannot raise him to God himself. Their Christ must
stand always among men on this earth. According to its teachings, the
Christ of God is gone, and only a human Jesus remains, the greatest,
highest, noblest, and holiest man among men. As such he is brought down
to the same level as Confucius, Shakamuni, Mohammed, Socrates, and
multitudes of the holy men of the world. Can Christianity stand on such
a human Christ as this as its sure and unshakable foundation? Is this
human Christ the rock of ages on which we can build the structure of
the whole Christian religion?
A religion which has been founded by man can by no means be the
absolute religion of the world. If it is human in its origin it must
be human all the way through, and it must share the fate of all other
human religions.
But here comes another exhortation from the camp of New Theology.
“Don’t trouble yourself too much about the nature of Christ,--whether
he is God or man. Some think that Christ is God, and others think that
he is man. Some think that Christ was born miraculously of a virgin,
conceived by the Holy Ghost; others think he was the real son of Mary
and Joseph, born in the same way as their other sons and daughters.
Some say he rose from the dead after three days, and others say that
he did not rise, and that what the Bible states as the resurrection
of Christ was a mere vision, seen by his devout but ignorant and
superstitious disciples, as a result of their own imagination. Thus we
have all kinds of views about the nature and the person of Christ, each
preferring his own view. In the olden time Christians laid great stress
on these beliefs, but nowadays we pass over those things and don’t make
much fuss about them. We don’t care much which way the people think
about the nature and person of Christ, whether he is God or man, if we
only love him and obey him with our whole heart. The supreme love and
absolute allegiance to our Lord are the only essentials which we should
always hold up as the life of our Christian faith. If we hold fast
to these truths then we can safely let go such non-essentials as the
Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.”
Thus we are exhorted by New Theology to love Jesus supremely and obey
him absolutely, regardless of our belief about the person and nature
of Christ. These exhortations sound very plausible, and seem to make
the new doctrine more spiritual and practical than the old-fashioned
orthodox belief, which made so much of the nature and person of Christ.
At the present day we hear such statements even from the pulpits
which are called evangelical. And many people are deceived by the
very plausibleness of this position, because they seem to be laying
more stress upon the practical side of Christianity than upon the
intellectual definition of the terms of the Christian doctrine. I was
one of those who were deceived by this teaching, and was finally led
away from the path of the truth.
Let me show how such unsound teaching of the essentials of Christian
doctrine as denying the deity of Christ will exert its baneful
influence upon the mind of the believer, especially upon the mind of
the newly converted Christian in a heathen land. Be sure that the
belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is not one of the non-essentials
of the Christian doctrine, as those New Theologians try to make us
believe, but it is the very life and essence of Christianity. If you
take away this belief from the Christian faith it will die.
In the first place, to speak plainly, do you think that we can love
Jesus Christ supremely if he is not God, but man? What is supreme love?
Is it not a true, living, personal love? But if Jesus Christ was a mere
man, born of Mary and Joseph, just as all other men were born, then
he must have been dead for nineteen centuries. And if he is not risen
from the dead, can we love supremely such a dead man? We sometimes say
that we love such and such great men of history, such as Washington and
Lincoln, but in this case we mean we love their memory, not the persons
themselves. But we cannot love them as we love our fathers, mothers,
wives, and husbands, who are really living among us now. We cannot have
the warm, living, personal love for those historical personages that
we have for those who are living right among us. What is that supreme
love which true Christians cherish toward their Saviour? Is it a loving
memory, or true personal, living love? To the true Christian is not
Jesus the ever-living and ever-present personal Saviour? Do we not love
him more than father or mother, wife or husband? Surely we love him as
a person, and not as a beautiful character who once lived upon this
earth, and who is pictured for us by his biographers.
I once listened to an eloquent preacher of New Theology who pictured
the character of Jesus before his audience as a perfect model in all
respects--holy, righteous, kind, loving, gentle, meek, humble, patient,
strong, brave, and so on. It was a most exquisite portraiture of human
character. But all the while I was listening I felt as though I was
standing before a marble statue, beautiful to look at, but cold and
lifeless. He was not introducing a living Saviour to his audience,
but only showing them that there was such a good man who once lived
upon this earth, and who had this beautiful character. That was all.
This Jesus may have had such deep love for his disciples who were
contemporary with him, but he could not have loved you and me, because
he could not have known us at such a distant time. He was a man of
nineteen centuries ago. This preacher was praising the character of
Jesus just as the novelist praises his heroes. By listening to such
a painting of the character of the human Jesus how can we feel true
personal love toward him? True and supreme love comes from the living
and direct touch of heart with heart, as a fire flashes by the friction
of steel and flint.
When I lost my faith in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ as my
ever-living, personal Saviour, I lost my supreme love for him also.
Henceforth I regarded and honored him as a historical personage,
perhaps the holiest and greatest and best of all men who ever lived on
this earth. But that warmth and joy of the living, personal love to the
living, personal Saviour were all gone, and my Christian faith became
dead and cold, or rather it should be said that it became simply an
intellectual appreciation of the beautiful character of an old sage.
As to allegiance to Christ, do you think you can require of any man
such absolute allegiance to a mere man, though he may have been the
greatest and best that the world has ever produced? My orthodox faith
taught me that I should obey Jesus because he is my Creator as well
as my Saviour. In the first place, as God he created me, and then as
Saviour he came down from heaven and died upon the cross to save me,
but he rose again from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of his
Father, making intercession for me, and he will come again to rule the
whole world. Since Jesus is my living and personal Saviour, I must obey
him absolutely and unreservedly. I must love him more than father or
mother, son or daughter, or even my own life itself. I must sacrifice
my life for him. But if he is not such a Saviour, but a mere teacher
who gave us wise precepts and doctrines, who led a beautiful life long
years ago, and who died at last upon the cross at the hand of his
enemies, what right have you to ask absolute allegiance from me who
have no relation at all to him? There have been many great and good men
in this world. Confucius, Socrates, Shakamuni, and all other founders
of the world religions were more or less great, and we are indebted
to them for their teachings and precepts and inspired by their fine
examples. But no one thinks of demanding from us absolute allegiance to
these great men, or asks us to sacrifice our lives for them. Thus, with
the downfall of the belief in the deity of Christ, the authority of
Jesus Christ as a divine Master must go also.
One of the glories of Christianity is that we have had such a multitude
of martyrs for the cause of Christ during the nineteen centuries of its
existence. Do you think that a man would face unflinchingly the blazing
fire of persecution simply on the strength of his belief in Jesus as a
great moral teacher? Would frail women have calmly faced those roaring
lions approaching slowly but surely to tear them to pieces with their
cruel claws, merely on the strength of the belief that by Christ’s
humane teaching womanhood was lifted up to the same level with manhood?
It was only in the strength of a belief that the living Saviour was
right at their side with his outstretched arms to catch and carry
them straight into the bosom of our heavenly Father that the martyrs
braved the fire and sword. If such unsound doctrine as the liberals
are now teaching had prevailed at the beginning of the introduction of
Christianity into the world, there would have been no martyrdom for the
Christian faith, and Christianity must have ceased to exist long ago.
Thus by the study of New Theology and Higher Criticism all belief in
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity were destroyed one after
another, and I was again left to my former self. I was introduced into
the Christian religion by the front gate of orthodoxy, and led out
of it by the back gate of New Theology into my old heathen doubt and
unbelief.
The enlightened heathen hold the same view as the liberals with regard
to the Bible and Christ. They also believe that the Bible is a good
book, but that it contains both truth and error. They too believe that
Jesus was a great and good man, but a man only, and not God. So these
enlightened heathen are standing on the same ground as the liberals,
and there is no need of going to them and teaching them the doubts and
unbeliefs they already have.
By this time my vision of the future world and eternal life became very
vague and obscure. The unseen world became now very misty and foggy. I
could not see clearly, and so I was shut up to this world. I thought,
“Let the future take care of itself; my concern is in this world
alone.” Thus I became a man of the world. Now my philosophy was to be
healthy, wealthy, happy, and good. To have a strong body, a comfortable
living, a happy home, and a good reputation in this world is enough
for any man. It was not my theory only, but I put it into practise as
much as I could, and I attained my objects pretty well, except for the
second one. I had a good wife and nine children, all well and good, and
a happy home. I was strong and healthy, and was quite popular, and was
regarded as one of the most successful social reformers in my country.
I was not so selfish as to think only of my own happiness, but I tried
to make other people happy also. I became a preacher of thrift and
economy; and during twenty years I was engaged in teaching the gospel
of saving, not souls, but money. I traveled all over the country, from
one end to the other, and delivered several thousand lectures on the
subject of economy and saving. During this time I think I preached
the doctrine of saving to over five million people. I am known, even
now, in Japan, more as a preacher of saving money than a preacher of
saving souls. I think I have done some little good in this respect to
the people of my own country, and I believe the government, as well as
my people, recognize this fact. I was quite satisfied with my worldly
success, not knowing that such satisfaction is the most dangerous
menace to a man’s spiritual life.
But all this was simply the outward appearance. If you look a little
deeper into the matter, you will soon find out what a dreadful state a
backsliding man can come into. At first it was a matter of intellectual
doubt and unbelief. I was shaken in my mind by the arguments of New
Theology. But the work of the Devil did not stop here. I was now shaken
morally and spiritually. This moral shaking made most dreadful havoc in
my spiritual life. Sin crept in, and I was made a captive again. Oh,
what a wretched man I was in those days of backsliding! Even to think
of those days gives me unendurable pain. I strayed so far away that
even my friends lost their hope of my returning. Yet there were two
women, one an American and the other a Japanese, who, I was afterward
told, were praying for me without ceasing during those twenty years of
my prodigal life. God in his faithfulness watched over me during all
those years, and finally brought me back to fellowship with himself. He
will never forsake those he has once redeemed.
Between the Bible of the orthodox faith and that of New Theology there
is the difference of heaven and earth. One is heavenly, divine, and
holy; the other is earthly, human, and therefore unholy. One is the
God-given, infallible standard by which we measure all our conduct;
the other consists of rules and regulations given by men, which we may
use or not, as we may please. One is the Master whom we must obey
absolutely, the other is the servant whom we may employ or not. One is
an inexhaustible mine of eternal truth stored up by God; the other is
a shallow pit dug by men. One is the living oracles of God; the other,
dead documents of ancient wisdom. The Bible in the hand of New Theology
has become an entirely different thing from that of the true Christian
faith of the nineteenth century. It has entirely lost its divine
authority, and therefore its teachings and commandments have no more
binding power than mere human instruction.