text:
Home » Library » Modern » Robert Price » Beyond Born Again »
Beyond Born Again
Section III-- Can Evangelical Theology be Born Again?
Chapter 8: Biblical Ventriloquism
"Beloved, now we are the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be...."
-- I John 3:2a
"Watch what you say
They'll be calling you a radical,
A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal!
" -- Supertramp, "The Logical Song"
"He was drifting free, open and light-sensitive and susceptible. He remained a religious man, a true believer cut loose from one system of faith and looking for another that would more nearly suit his experience of the world and would offer him religious legitimacy as well."
-- Peter Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X
Carl F. H. Henry and others have called for creativity on the part of Evangelical theologians. Up to now, it seems, these theologians have occupied themselves chiefly with criticisms of other theological views. (Interestingly, this is not least true of Henry himself.) But now, we are told, Evangelicals must begin to offer creative alternatives. The outsider must wonder just what kind of theological creativity these Evangelicals can have in mind. Most of their criticisms of other positions are aimed at Liberal theolgians' creativity or innovativeness. Instead of creativity, faithfulness in handing on "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" is prized by Evangelicals. If "faithfulness" in the sense of repetition is valued so by Evangelicals, what creativity could one expect from their theologians but creative new criticisms of other positions? And this is exactly what we do find in, e.g., David F. Well's The Search for Salvation or Gundry and Johnson's collection Tensions in Contemporary Theology.
Often Evangelicals can be heard to lament indignantly the fact that while they are open-minded enough to study Liberal texts, Liberals do not read Evangelical works. I believe that this is a pretty accurate perception. It is an unfortunate one, yet an understandable one. It seems to me that by and large Evangelical critiques of Liberal theology are not only repetitive and predictable, but also ineffective for various reasons. A Liberal will not be too far off if he concludes, "once you've read one, you've read 'em all," and then decides to read no further. Yet it need not be so. Reading the perceptive and constructive criticisms of outsiders would have to be beneficial to any position. I hope to point out a few dead ends in Evangelical polemics which often prevent Evangelicals from leveling really significant and helpful criticisms. In what follows, I do not mean to suggest that all Evangelical writers are prey to these errors, or that there is no important and cogent criticism being offered in their literature. I only wish to indicate a few false leads which presently prevent Evangelical theological critiques from being as helpful and to the point as they might be.
What is the function of Evangelical critiques? Though they may have resulted from an Evangelical scholar's serious interaction with Liberal theology, I believe that they come to function as excuses for most readers not to take Liberal theology seriously. One gets this feeling from the stereotyped and derivative way these arguments are often rehearsed in Evangelical literature. I get the impression that, e.g., conservative seminarians read these stock arguments and take them as a license henceforth either to ignore Liberal theologians, or to read them only to refute them. No one can know whetehr those Evangelical thinkers who originated these criticisms intended them to function this way. And if they do so function, this fact alone does not reflect on their cogency. They might be very fine arguments. But they often serve as reflexive defense mechanisms to protect the Evangelical position, in much the same way as the social avoidance tactics of Chapter 2 and the apologetical devices of Chapters 5- Chapters 7.
Consequently, much of the argument of the next two chapters aims at persuading the Evangelical reader to take a second look at Liberal theology. It may deserve more of a sympathetic hearing than he has been led to think. The present chapter will inevitably have implications for Evangelical theological methodology. (In it I scrutinize the Evangelical doctrine of scripture, since once articulated this doctrine is itself supposed to disqualify Liberal theology.) But in general my purpose here is not so much to criticize Evangelical theology as it is to clear away the obstacles which prevent serious attention to other views.
Evangelical theologians point to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, as the guarantor of their theological opinions. Whereas Liberal theological views have nothing to build on but the "sinking sands" of human opinion, the Evangelical can appeal to the Bible. His, we are to believe, is no mere human opinion. Thus Liberal theologians are ruled out of court on principle since they do not operate "in a scriptural manner."
What seems to go unnoticed in this argument is that the decision to believe in this propositional authority of the Bible is little more "objective" or self-evident than a preference for any other view of theological authority. When someone raises this point, apologists reply with a host of arguments for their view. Of course, this very response is a tacit admission that their choice of "biblical authority" is but one more debatable human opinion! Trying desperately to escape the circle of human subjectivity, Evangelicals claim that they unlike Liberals are only taking seriously "the Bible's own witness to itself" as verbally-inspired and infallible. These remarks are representative:
What the Bible teaches about its own inspiration is a matter purely of Divine testimony, and our business is simply to receive the testimony.... (Arthur W. Pink)[1]
... if [the advocates of "Biblical Theology," e.g., G. Ernest Wright] were consistent in reading the Bible "from within" and receiving what its authors were concerned to teach, they would be led to the doctrine of Scripture which we have expounded.... (J. I. Packer)[2]
This argument is circular at three strategic points. First, let us grant for the sake of argument that biblical texts do "teach" such an estimate of themselves. How does one know to take this self-claim with the particular kind of seriousness advocated by Evangelicals? There are other ways of taking biblical texts seriously besides parroting their literal, propositional sense. David H. Kelsey demonstrates this in his ground-breaking work The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology. One has not really said anything when he claims that "the Bible is authoritative for my theology." Even demythologizing liberals sincerely make this claim. The question is a hermeneutical one: granted that the Bible is normative, precisely how is that norm to be applied? Normative symbols? Normative propositions? Normative linguistic "deep structures"? The choice of how one takes the Bible a normative is a theological decision made prior to one's opening of the Bible. Kelsey shows this to be true no less of Warfield than of Bultmann.[3] One only need "take
seriously the biblical witness in the particular way Evangelicals do if one already reads biblical texts such as II Timonthy 3:16 from an Evangelical viewpoint! By contrast, a Neo-Orthodox or Lbieral theologian may have a doctrine of scriptural authority which logically leads him to bracket the literal, propositional reference of a text (supposedly) teaching verbal inspiration. Only if one already holds an Evangelical view of scripture does the literal claim of the texts seem to decide the issue! Once one opts for such a view of the authority of texts, one is free to decide issues like the "pre- versus post-tribulation Rapture" on this basis. But if the issue to be decided is the view of scripture itself, then quoting texts to decide the issue is clearly begging the question.
The second concentric circle of the Evangelical argument is closely related to the first. I call this the fallacy of the false monolith. Evangelical apologists beg the questions of the unity and boundaries of the canon when they argue in terms of the claims of "the Bible," i.e., one book in which claims made in one section automatically apply to all others. There is no such self-conscious unity. Such unity-uniformity is imposed from without by the Evangelical reader's doctrine of scripture. (Please note the difference between the notion of structural unity here, i.e., the Bible as one book with sixty-six chapters, and that of doctrinal unity, i.e., the absence of contradictions between the thought of various biblical writers. The latter question will concern us soon enough.) If the prophet Jeremiah claims "this is the Word of the Lord," is he referring also, e.g., to II Chronicles, or only to his own words? To assume the former one must also assume the canonical unity of the Bible as we know it. And, again, this is what is supposedly being proven.
The third ring in our theological circus concerns the exegesis of several texts in which the Bible is held to claim its own inspiration and infallibility. Once the "false monolith" is removed from consideration, it becomes apparent that several biblical writings are left on their own with no claim for inspiration at all, e.g., Proverbs, Samuel, Kings, Acts. Where we do find "claims for inspiration" in biblical texts, they are usually misapplied. Usually, they have nothing whatever to say about the production of inspired texts, which of course is the whole point at issue. For instance, there is an enormous number of passages in the Old Testament where a prophet announces that he is about to speak "the Word of the Lord." But do such statements say anything at all about the anonymous persons who at unknown dates recorded and compiled the prophet's oracles? Obviously not. There is no claim in these texts for an preservation of the prophetic books from error or falsification. These claims for prophetic inspiration simply do not refer to the later recording and editorial processes from which our biblical texts resulted. And remember, the Evangelical apologist is arguing precisely for the inspiration of the texts.
A similar fallacy occurs in the oft-heard argument that Jesus "authorized" the writing of inspired New Testament books in advanced. [4] The passage usually in mind here is John 16:13a: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you [the disciples] into all truth." Notice, however, that this passage says nothing specifically about Jesus' hearers going on to write a set of inspired texts. Even if it did, there would still be trouble, since
most of the New Testament documents are not written by the original twelve disciples. Tradition ascribes Matthew, I and II Peter, I, II and III John, the fourth gospel, and the Revelation to three of the original twelve. But anyone at all conversant with current New Testament scholarship (as the apologists certainly must be) knows that these ascriptions are matters of serious debate. I am not assuming the traditional ascriptions to be in error; I only point out that these apologists could at the most say that John 16:13a probably, or possibly, "authorizes" the inspiration of some New Testament literature. This would be a rather feeble argument. Furthermore, the protest that Mark, Luke, and the writer to the Hebrews are "authorized associates"[5] of the twelve is obviously no argument at all. Even the apologists can produce no saying of Jesus authorizing apprentices to write canonical books.
In all the above, it was not my intention to cast doubt on the inspiration of biblical books. I do not even deny that there are occasional claims by an individual writer that his own writing is inspired (e.g., I Corinthians 14:37).[6] I am merely calling the apologists' bluff that all they are doing is to affirm the view of scripture "claimed by scripture for itself."
There is a slightly different form of this argument that deserves mention. Here it is contended that we can at least reconstruct and abide by the attitude toward (Old Testament) scripture held by Jesus and the apostles (or the early church). By saying "We hold Jesus' view of scripture," the Evangelical apologists really mean, "Jesus held our view of scripture." Did he? The theological apologists produce texts like "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), or "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16:17). Even Liberals, who do not themselves hold such a view of scripture, are supposed to agree that Jesus believed scripture to be inerrant and inspired. The favorite Liberal to quote on this point is Bultmann, in Jesus and the Word:
Jesus agree always with the scribes of his time in accepting without question the authority of the (Old Testament) Law.... Jesus did not attack the Law, but assumed its authority and interpreted it. [7]
So far, Bultmann sounds amazingly like John R. W. Stott or J. I. Packer! Isn't it odd that Evangelicals stop quoting Bultmann where they do? For instance why are we not told that Bultmann's historical judgement is that Jesus'
... interpretation often did violence to the original meaning of the Law, that Jesus' own course of action on occasion was opposed to the Law.... [And] in contrast to the scribal assumption that all passages of Scripture are equally binding and that apparent contradictions are to be reconciled, Jesus sets one passage against another.[8]
Ulrich Wilkens and Ernst Käsemann are only two of many other New Testament historians and exegetes who deny that Jesus' attitude toward scripture was purely one of obedient submission. Instead, they argue, Jesus felt free to set aside the demands of scripture on his own authority. Evangelicals themselves are not entirely unaware
of this attitude of Jesus. In fact in debates on the "deity of Christ" they constantly appeal to Jesus' sovereignity over the Law to prove that he claimed divine authority for himself! So depending on which point they are arguing at the moment, Evangelicals seem to attribute to Jesus two different attitudes toward scripture. But Evangelicals are hardly faithful to either one.
First, insofar as Jesus did abide by the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, he seemed to include adherence to Old Testament laws as well. This is certainly the plain sense of a passage often quoted by Evangelicals in this connection:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven(Matthew 5:17-19 NIV)
Yet those who, in obedience to such a text observe Old Testament laws (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists), are stigmatized by Evangelicals as heretics! Will the real adherent of Jesus' view of scripture please stand up?
When some Evangelicals emulate Jesus' freedom to set aside one biblical text in favor of the "weightier matters of the Law," they fare no better. In his treatment of the divorce question (Mark 10:2-9), Jesus sets aside one Pentateuchal passage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) with another (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24). Virginia Mollencott and Paul Jewett use the same hermeneutical device on the issue of equality for women, setting aside I Timothy 2:12 with Galations 3:28. Are their fellow Evangelicals happy about this? Far from it! Surely Jesus himself would have merited a chapter in some first-century Battle for the Torah!
There is yet another area in which Evangelicals conspicuously decline to affirm Jesus' and the apostles' view of scripture. Studies like Richard Longnecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period make it clear that Jesus and early Christians made abundant use of rabbincal techniques such as midrash, raz pesher, and allegorizing in their exegesis. Very often these devices had little to do with the plain intent of the biblical writer, as even a casual glance at the Qumran commentaries or the first chapters of Matthew will show. Yet Evangelicals claim to espouse the grammatico-historical method, formulated in the Reformation to avoid such uncontrollable allegorizing and spiritualizing of texts. Surely these two would be unequally yoked together! This irony becomes painfully apparent in the frequent Evangelical citing of two New Testament passages:
Now about the dead rising-- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, "I am [i.e., not was] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Mark 12:26-27).
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ (Galatians 3:16).
These texts are cited as proof that Jesus and Paul believed in strictly verbal inspiration. They must have, so the argument runs, since they based the weight of entire theological arguments on the mere tense of a verb or the number of a noun. Perhaps so, but do Evangelicals really wish to swallow this kind of fanciful exegesis? In both cases the "exegetical" argument has left the plain sense of the Old Testament passage far behind! Can one consistently accept Jesus' and Paul's view of inspiration, and then reject the manner of using scripture that followed from it? It is not clear that only one of these things and not both would constitute a "view of scripture."
Apparent Contradictions are the Worst Kind
For most Evangelicals the Bible is a harmonious source book for doctrine. It yields "propositions" representative of "didactic thought models" (Pinnock) which when put together coherently form a normative system of doctrine.
Theology renders explicit in orderly doctrines the truth implicit in the Word of God. It experssed logically the truths which are set forth chronologically in the Bible.... All the data of scripture are relevant data, the raw material of theological models.... The exegesis of Scripture thus has absolute priority over all systems. Systems which fail to fit the data are to be dismantled. A faulty theological system is one which cannot satisfy the biblical evidence.... (Pinnock). [9]
The focus on scripture's authority here seems to be on the statements appearing in an inspired text. This is evidenced by the very term "propositional revelation," as well as by the distinction sometimes drawn to the effect that a biblical writer is infallible only when he writes, not otherwise. This is a parallel to the infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, and for obviously similiar apologetical reasons. Instead of gifted or inspired personalities, the important thing for the Evangelical is the inspired text. Otherwise, the endless haranguing about the alleged fact and nature of "plenary, verbal" inspiration as opposed to "conceptual" or some other kind of inspiration would make no sense.
The locus of authority in the text is also to be distinguished from a focus on the subject matter of the text. For example, Gerhard Maier deplores the distinction first made by Semler between the text of scripture and the Word of God.[10] Instead, the Word of God should be identified with the text of scripture. Evangelicals ceaselessly protested the Neo-Orthodox claim that the Bible "contained" or "became" the Word of God. No, they said, the text is the revealed "Word of God written." "What scripture says, God says."
With this estimation of the scriptural text, hermeneutics would seem to consist of little more than exegesis. To be believed a statement need only appear in the text, at least theoretically. The recognition of theological disunity in the Bible would be absolutely fatal to such an understanding. Two "inspired" but contradictory statements
would neutralize each other and would take the criterion of authority (i.e., the presence of a statement in the text) with them. "If all inspiration guarantees us is that we get viewpoints that are contradictory, which ones are we to believe and how are we to know who is right, and who is wrong?" (Lindsell). [11] This is why all "apparent contradictions" are harmonized. "As for the principle of harmony, this... is dictated by the doctrine of inspiration, which tells us that the Scriptures are the products of a single divine mind." "Scripture should not be set against Scripture.... The expectation for this principle is the expectation that the teaching of the God of truth will prove to be consistent with itself" (Packer). [12] "Scripture is in agreement with itself. God who is eternal truth does not contradict Himself." (Pinnock).[13] "Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct on Biblical passage by another...." (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).[14] "[Our] utter trust in Scripture-- in all that it teaches-- must govern the interpreter's practice, thus eliminating in principle any interpretation which sees the biblical texts as... self-contradictory" (Montgomery). [15] "We would assert... that there is no disagreement [e.g.] between Paul and James, and that such a principle of theological diversity destroys the doctrine of inspiration completely" (Ranald MacAulay and Jerram Barrs). [16]
Evangelical theologians profess to use the grammatico-historical method in discovering the straightforward meaning of texts since it is this "plain sense" of all texts that is to be believed. Yet it is obvious from the above statements that they are not free to do so. "Less clear" (i.e., theologically troublesome) texts may require "broader interpretation" (Montgomery) in the light of "more clear" texts. Evangelicals point out that if one recognized a "real contradiction" between two texts, both could not be believed, and an extra-biblical criterion of some sort would have to be employed in order to decide which one to believe. They think they avoid this trap by hiding behind "apparent" contradictions. Yet ironically it is just this kind of contradiction which must destroy a notion of biblical authority based on the "apparent" or "plain" sense of the text! The moment one admits that the "apparent" meaning of Text A cannot be accepted since it would conflict with Text B, one has surrendered the criterion of biblical authority, i.e., that the plain sense of any and all texts is normative. Thus "apparent contradictions" are actually fatal to the Evangelical schema, whereas "real contradictions" (whatever that would mean) are irrelevant!
A couple of brief examples are in order. In one turns to the New Testament for guidance on the question of divorce, he finds Mark allowing no excuse for divorce (Mark 10:11). But Matthew is a bit more lenient, allowing one legitimate pretext, i.e., adultery (Matthew 19:9). Well, it looks like these two texts are in conflict. But surely the real meaning of one of them lies deeper than the surface meaning! Perhaps a less obvious meaning would make one passage echo the teaching of the other! All right, but wasn't it supposed to be the "apparent sense" of both that was normative? And how are you going to decide which text's "apparently contradictory" meaning is to harmonize into the other's "plain sense"? If you choose Matthew's version, you negate Mark's, since it cannot be correct to say there
is no legitimate excuse for divorce if it turns out there is one good excuse after all. (And note that Matthew realized this and changed the wording of the scribal question accordingly!)
Another example would be the question of "mountain-moving faith." Pentecostals such as Kenneth Hagin take as normative the plain meaning of Mark 11:24. Any request will be granted. Calmer Evangelicals remind their brethren that I John 5:14 adds a qualification: God will only answer requests that are "according to his will" anyway. The two texts do not agree. The blanket promise of Mark 11:24 would change in meaning completely if this "catch 22" were intended. Non-Pentecostals assume in effect that Mark (and Jesus) really did have this "God's will" qualification in mind-- it just isn't apparent. Uh-oh! Then the normative "real meaning" of the Marcan passage is not the "apparent sense"! How do we know? Because we prefer the apparent sense of brethren that I John 5:14 with its level-headed common sense.
The Evangelicals end up doing exactly what they criticize Käsemann and others for doing; they harmonize one text into another instead of believing both. They do so on the basis of doctrinal preference:
A passage of Holy Scripture is to be taken as true in its natural, literal sense unless... an article of faith established elsewhere in Scripture requires a broader understanding of the text. (Montgomery) [17]
One could ask for no better example of a "canon within the canon"!
As they often do, Evangelicals here adopt an all-or-nothing stance. If the Bible is not in complete agreement, it might as well be in complete disagreement. The mirror image of their position is that of Walter Kaufmann:
...if [theologians] must offer a single message, they simply have to gerrymander [the Bible]; and it stands to reason that different theologians will come up with different messages. If they were to be fair... they would have to admit that there is no single message; that there are many different views....[18]
Kaufmann and Evangelicals agree that without a uniform message "from cover to cover," any theological use made of the Bible would be completely arbitrary. However, the attempted solution of Evangelicals turns out to be no more adequate than the "dead ends" they decry.
In spite of all... apparent evidence to the contrary, one can maintain with confidence that the Bible has one message, speaks with one voice, tells one story, unfolds one plan of salvation, has one view of itself...."
But as the same writer admits, "This may be easier said than demonstrated...." (John H. Gerstner)[19]
The Evangelical claim is that their doctrine of scripture gives them virtual immunity from subjectivism and qualitative superiority over Liberal theologies. Yet the doctrine only serves to lengthen the line of defense. Not only is their doctrine of scripture not self-evidently the only proper option; in addition it falls prey to
fatal self-contradiction. One must sacrifice some texts to defend the authority of all texts! Thus it is the peculiar bane of this doctrine of scripture that, in order to defend it, one must betray it!
About now some readers may be protesting, "But surely not all Evangelicals employ this model of biblical authority! What about Theologian A, or Exegete B?" I hope that by this, such a reader does not intend to throw Pinnock, Packer, Montgomery, et al., to the wolves, claiming that they do not represent "true Evangelicalism." No, it must be admitted that the writers dealt with in this chapter are influential spokesmen representing many if not most Evangelicals. Bickering about who are the "real Evangelicals" only confuses the issue. My objective is to critique one particular model of scriptural authority. As a matter of fact, it happesn to be the most common one among Evangelicals, and it is quite often used by its adherents as a yardstick with which to disqualify Liberal theologies.
But there is a new trend among some Evangelical theologians. Of late there has been a shift toward Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, at least on the scripture question, among some Evangelicals, such as G. C. Berkouwer and Donald G. Bloesch. Karl Barth had maintained that the Bible itself is not the Word of God but rather contains or becomes the Word insofar as it witnesses to Jesus Christ, the true and unequivocal Word of God. Berkouwer's important work Holy Scripture is moving in the same direction. Much of his book is taken up with demonstrating how the traditional predicates of scripture ("infallibility," "perspicuity," etc.) really refer to the salvific message of scripture, not all the incidentals. Similarly Bloesch in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology, announces that "Jesus Christ and the message about him constitute the material norm of our faith.... The Bible is authoritative because it points beyond itself to the... living and transcendent Word of God."[20]
Critics sympathetic to Barth, Colin Brown for one, warned their fellow Evangelicals not to be overly upset at Barth's doctrine of scripture. Even though it was theoretically inadequate (i.e., non-Evangelical), in practice Barth used scripture texts in much the same way he would if he had believed in verbal inspiration. "O happy fault!" Bloesch pointed out this very inconsistency in an earlier book: "In practice Barth seems to take for granted the essential reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture, but in principle he allows for errors even in the matters of theological judgement"[21] (The Evangelical Renaissance). The point is that Brown, Bloesch, and others saw an inconsistency here: though Barth used scripture as an Evangelical would, his doctrine of scripture could not justify such a use, since Barth held scripture to be infallible only regarding the rudimentary gospel message. Interestingly, now some of these same writers have moved in a Barthian direction, and, ironically, they are becoming guilty of the very same contradiction!
Bloesch himself now writes that "not all Scripture attests equally to the incarnation and atoning work of Jesus Christ, to the Gospel of reconciliation and redemption, which is the formal norm of Scripture." [22] He even calls this "formal norm" a "canon within the canon."[23] The implications for the secondary elements are clear:
... not only the historical and cultural perspective of the
biblical writers was limited but also their theological and ethical ideas. It is only when their testimony is related to and refined by the self-revelation of Jesus Christ that it has the force of infallible authority.[24]
What is the result of this fact for the theological use of the Bible? "It is inadmissible to treat the Bible as though it were a sourcebook of revealed truths that can be drawn out of Scripture by deductive or inductive logic." [25] Yet, shades of Barth, this is precisely how Bloesch goes on to use the Bible! Citing texts from this and that corner of scripture, Bloesch maps out, e.g., the relations between heaven, hell, sheol, paradise, and the millenium. He could never press the Bible for such detailed information if he didn't consider it some kind of metaphysical encyclopedia, the very notion which (if language means anything) he has disavowed! The fact that Bloesch fails to accept the implications of his new approach to scripture is doubly odd since he had pointed out this very inconsistency in Barth!
Those Evangelicals who look to theologians like Berkouwer and Bloesch to deliver them from the headaches of the Packer-Montgomery model msut not imagine that their accustomed use of scripture (to settle secondary points of doctrine) can remain unchanged. In the final chapter I will note the views of some Evangelicals who have begun to face the implications of a new model of biblical authority.
[Footnotes For This Chapter] [Table Of Contents]
"Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity" is copyright © 1993 by Robert M. Price. All rights reserved.
The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with the written permission of Robert M. Price.


text:
Q: Specify env option for ES7 For using ES6 in the environment, I have to specify the .eslintrc file as:
"env": {
    "node": false,
    "browser": true,
    "amd": true,
    "mocha": true,
    "jasmine": false,
    "es6": true
}

But what when I want to use ES7, can I just:
"env": {
    "node": false,
    "browser": true,
    "amd": true,
    "mocha": true,
    "jasmine": false,
    "es7": true
}

?
For information, I looked at https://eslint.org/docs/user-guide/configuring but did not get the answer.
Update
My current file eslint file looks as following:
{
    "globals": {
        "com": true,
        "oData": false,
        "sakp": false,
        "fin": true,
        "cloud": true,
        "bsuite": false,
        "cordova": false,
        "ui": true,
        "webide": false,
        "asyncTest": false,
        "i2d": true,
        "gltrade": false,
        "drilldown": true,
        "opaTest": false,
        "ux": true,
        "test": false,
        "$": false,
        "module": false,
        "ai": false,
        "notEqual": false,
        "notDeepEqual": false,
        "throws": false,
        "ssuite": false,
        "deepEqual": false,
        "s2p": false,
        "Promise": false,
        "ehs": false,
        "sinon": false,
        "stop": false,
        "util": true,
        "slo": false,
        "mdm": false,
        "mytravelandexpense": false,
        "strictEqual": false,
        "cec": false,
        "cus": false,
        "notStrictEqual": false,
        "fscm": false,
        "fm": true,
        "nw": true,
        "shcm": false,
        "fcg": true,
        "URI": false,
        "fs": true,
        "retail": false,
        "d3": false,
        "hcm": false,
        "oil": true,
        "assert": false,
        "hpa": false,
        "ok": false,
        "sap": true,
        "QUnit": false,
        "cross": true,
        "srm": false,
        "equal": false,
        "expect": false,
        "jQuery": false,
        "publicservices": true,
        "uxcc": false,
        "equals": false,
        "tl": false,
        "travel": true
    },
    "env": {
        "node": false,
        "browser": true,
        "amd": true,
        "mocha": true,
        "jasmine": false,
        "es6": true
    }
}

Where to specify es7?

A: To control which edition of syntax is allowed, you'll want to set the ecmaVersion under parserOptions:
{
    "env": {
        "node": false,
        "browser": true,
        "amd": true,
        "mocha": true,
        "jasmine": false,
        "es6": true
    },
    "parserOptions": {
        "ecmaVersion": 2016
    }
}

The value can either be the year or edition number of the specification (e.g. ECMAScript 2018 and the 9th edition have the same effect).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When we look back over a short period of time, it is amazing how many incidents we are called to, and also the diverse range of those incidents.
In the last 12 months we have been called out on more than 200 separate occasions. Sometimes we will go for many days without a call, which is fantastic. At other times, we will have to attend several incidents on the one day, sometimes to different fires or accidents at the same time.
The range of incidents is varied in terms of both size and type.
We will naturally become involved in all major fires in the region, such as the tragic Black Saturday fires in 2009, the fires to the north of Melbourne early in 2014 – to both fight and control the fires and importantly protect life and property.
There are numerous other incidents that we are called to on a regular basis, such as grass and scrub fires, unauthorised burning, road accidents, car fires and explosions, smoke scares, house fires, chemical spills, gas leaks, alarm calls (real and false) and chimney fires. We are also involved in controlled burnings, especially prior to the major fire season. On top of that there are the many Public Service activities we are involved in, such as the Good Friday Appeal Collection. As well as ongoing advice and assistance to residents and businesses in the region.
The important thing to remember is that we respond to every call, real or false, with most being active calls that will require some action.
The Healesville Fire Brigade has been providing an excellent service, protecting our community for nearly 120 years. Currently there are about 40 operational volunteers, the strongest we have been for many years, and the membership includes people covering a wide range of ages and occupations.
We are indeed an interesting mix: airport workers, arbourists, artists, AV technicians, builders, bus drivers, chefs, clerks, community workers, computer experts, contractors, electricians, farmers, first aide educators, graphic artists, heavy machine operators, househusbands, housewives, labourers, nurses, plasterers, restaurateurs, retirees, road construction workers, students, traffic controllers, truck drivers, veterinary assistants … and more!
Several of our members have served the brigade for 20, 30 or more than 40 years, while some have been around for only 12 months. However, we are always looking for new members, for both firefighting and non-firefighting roles. And now is the ideal time. With the end of the fire danger period, we are able to dedicate more time to training than the hotter, more active months.
You will receive comprehensive training, including basic fire ground practices, pump operation and fire safety awareness, with safety as our Number One priority. Other training may include: leadership training, first aid accreditation, communications, breathing apparatus, and much more.
We also need people who may prefer to be involved in areas such as driving vehicles, administration, assistance with community education programs, fund raising and social activities.
We are particularly in need of people who are able to be on call during the day, as many of our members work or have to spend time out of the area. In fact, around 70% of our calls occur during the daytime. If you live in the Healesville or Chum Creek area, and spend most of your daytime hours in the Healesville and Chum Creek areas, you may be exactly who we are looking for right now. For more information please visit the CFA website or contact us directly via our contact page.


© 2016. Alex Bilusic • Copyright laws apply to any and all materials on this site.
MA in Graphic Design and Visual Communications.
I live in Zagreb, Croatia and have gained professional experience working at design studios and advertising agencies. I work as an independent graphic designer.
I was born on July 11th, 1981 in Zagreb, Croatia under a full name Aleksandra Bilušić. I lived in Algiers for a couple of years when I was a kid and then moved back to Zagreb. After finishing elementary school, I chose the Fashion and Design High school of Zagreb and graduated in 2000. In 2001 I began studying at the School of Design, Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb and achieved an MA degree in 2006. During the studies I worked as a graphic design freelancer, by myself and being part of creative teams with my colleagues. My photographs have been exhibited at various galleries, some of which are Galerija ULUPUH and Fotogalerija KIC in Zagreb and Galerija Batana in Rovinj.
With a solid foundation in diverse artistic and technical subjects I have achieved a wide education in various fields beside design – in arts and art history, both classical and digital photography, various other mediums, TV and video, psychology and marketing including branding and advertising.
I worked as a designer and art director and have also worked in fields of event management, ad campaign visuals for various media types and for various clients and as well gained expertise in organization, filming, production and post-production. Being an art director included occasional copywriting as well. I am fluent in English and have a passive knowledge of German and Italian.
I am a Mac-addict currently in possession of 7 Macs and 3 iPhones, including a total balance of 9 Mighty Mice and a Magic Mouse. My other passion is my car – a boxer-engined Alfa Romeo. And yes, I am a cat person. With a total balance of 2 cats and occasional orphaned kittens.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, business proposals or just want to drop me a line.
Alex delivered everything we asked for, and educated us in the process. Her visual sense is compelling and her ability to translate our words into a graphic treatment provided a great balance of whimsy and professionalism which also extends to her feeling for typography. Our partners, customers, and associates have complimented us on visual identity she created for us. Alex interpreted our words into an excellent visual that captures our creativity and delivers the visual explanation of "New," "Enterprise," and "Factory". Alex won us over with her logo design for the New Enterprise Factory and she's now our designer of record.
Our requirements were simple – we needed someone that could translate our words into a graphic design that communicated our ideas. Sounds easy, but it's not – unless you're a graphic design guru. That's what Alex is. She's amazing. They say a picture is worth 1000 words. Creating that picture is beyond most of us, but it comes naturally to Alex. She's able to listen, translate and create. I, literally, don't have the words to express the talent, creativity and expertise Alex brings to a project. She's outstanding.
Alex immersed herself fully in the project and was able to grasp very quickly the essence of what I was looking for. She has been very patient and didn't lose her enthusiasm through multiple executions until we got it just right. Her strength is in her ability to capture essence through a simple execution. It's been more then 8 months since she did our logo and every time I look at it I like it more and more. Alex comes with my highest recommendation!
Alex designed a logo for our new business. Her design was fantastic and has been great for the business. She was also very helpful supplying small changes we needed to the logo, and also giving her thoughts on our website design. We will definitely keep Alex in mind for future projects.
I've been thrilled with the graphics work Alex did for my website. She was quick to understand exactly what I wanted to convey, and the logo and banner she created for me are exactly the image that I want to present to the world. Alex was sensitive to my feedback, willingly fine-tuning her design until it expressed my vision. She is both creative and professional, turning the work around in a very short period of time. I greatly appreciate the work she did for me, and would recommend her without reservation.
Working with Alex has been very beneficial to our company. She is professional, responsive, and very talented. She's given us everything that we wanted and more. Our investors, customers, and associates have commented on the high quality of the visual identity she created for us. As a start-up company, we were lucky to work with someone who helped us convey our image so professionally. We have come back to Alex for additional projects, and plan to continue to do so in the future. We highly recommend her services.
Alex was a pleasure to work with in helping shape my company's identity with a brilliant concept. She understood my business idea and was able to transform it into a perfect logo which can be used in multiple ways. Alex was extremely responsive to different ideas and was also very helpful with suggestions when I needed her design expertise. I would highly recommend her work!
I have worked with Alex to develop and produce the catchMe communication guidelines. Alex is a straightforward, direct graphic developer. She is a down-to-earth graphic talent which I recommend.
Alex has a fantastic eye and is very easy and professional to work with. We use many Asian based low cost providers to support the bulk of our work, however when it comes to design and artistic ability, I believe you get what you pay for and it shows for as long as you keep using the collateral/site produced. Given the excellent quality of her work and her responsiveness, Alex is still a huge relative bargain and much easier to communicate and work with than many providers. I would highly recommend Alex to any friend or business associate.
Alex designed our logo and did a fantastic job. She took the time to understand what we were selling and the image we were looking for. There was great communication throughout, Alex proposed some great variants and made very useful suggestions to help us decide on the final version. Overall we are very satisfied and would recommend Alex to anyone looking for a professionally designed logo.
In the shopping of my logo design, I decided to run an online contest and allowed anyone worldwide to submit an entry. Of all the 60-70 designers that participated in the contest, Alex was the person that most understood the look and feel I wanted in a logo. I could tell that she did her homework, researched my website, and really understood the audience that I was trying to reach.
Furthermore, her design was nothing like the others. I checked out her portfolio and was impressed by the large array of original designs that she had already completed for companies of all shapes and sizes. Very impressive. I'd recommend Alex to anyone looking for a design. She's very talented, responsive, and does a great job of trying to find out exactly what you want in your design!
Working with Alex on our recent Jo2Go Coffee project was a breath of fresh air! Her professionalism was much appreciated, and the quality of her work is truly exceptional – I'd definitely recommend her for your next design need.
Prove you're not a robot by entering this text below.
It might be helpful if you would take time to download and read this client questionnaire prior to contacting me.
You could find some interesting questions to think about.


text:
Request resources
Use EndNote
Register for workshops
Get assessment help
Get Language and Learning Support
Book a study room
Language and Learning Support
How to write using an academic style
In this section, common problems relating to language construction have been identified so that students can become aware of these and avoid them in their writing.
Common problems in language construction
Sentence structure
Sentences can be short and concise, or longer and more complex. However, it is important to vary the length of your sentences so that your writing doesn't sound too abrupt (with the overuse of short sentences), or too densely packed with ideas (with the overuse of long sentences).
One of the most common problems in writing is students writing sentence fragments rather than complete sentences.
What is a sentence?
A complete sentence (which is also called an independent clause) must always contain a subject and a verb.
Example 1: The bushfires devastated many of the areas in the Adelaide Hills.
This first sentence contains a subject (The bushfires) and a verb (devastated) and then more information in given about what the bushfires devastated.
You may sometimes see sentences without a subject but these are usually instructions.
Example 2: Use the exit stairs in case of fire.
The subject (you or anybody reading this notice) is inferred from the situation but the verb is still there.
What is a sentence fragment?
A sentence fragment (which may also be a dependent clause) is an incomplete sentence because it is missing either the subject or the verb or both.
Example 1: Because of the northerly winds
Example 2: Because of the northerly winds, years of drought and tinder-box bushland, along with an ill-prepared and under-equipped country fire service.
The sentence fragment can be made into a complete sentence:
Because of the northerly winds, the fire spread quickly through the bushland.
The fire spread quickly through the bushland because of the northerly winds, years of drought and tinder-box bushland, along with an ill-prepared and under-equipped country fire service.
Examples of independent clauses
Many of our laws originated from customary law.
The authority of customary law should be limited.
The customary system of law varies in different areas.
Examples of dependent clauses/phrases
In resolving disputes and meting out justice.
Outside of the major cities.
Particularly in areas of criminal justice.
By adding an independent clause to each of the dependent clauses above, we can complete each sentence.
Village councils play the main role in resolving disputes and meting out justice.
Outside of the major cities, village councils play the main role in resolving disputes and meting out justice.
The customary system of law varies in different countries particularly in areas of criminal justice.
Joining two complete (independent) sentences
If you want to make a longer sentences from two complete sentences, you will need to use a linking word or phrase.
The bushfires devastated many of the areas in the Adelaide Hills. Many people lost their homes.
The bushfires devastated many of the areas in the Adelaide Hills and many people lost their homes.
The national government has little control over what happens in rural areas in north-west Pakistan. The people rely on their village councils to enforce the law.
The national government has little control over what happens in rural areas in north-west Pakistan so the people rely on their village councils to enforce the law.
Parallel structure
Another common problem in writing is ensuring that when we list a number of components in a sentence, we must keep the same grammatical structure. Generally the rule is to use all nouns (or noun phrases) or verb + noun (or noun phrase).
Example 1: The main student attributes include an ability to communicate well, think critically, and problem solving.
This is not a parallel structure because it uses a noun phrase, verb/noun and noun. The following sentence is correct as all nouns are used.
The main student attributes include effective communication, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Example 2: Because of northerly winds blowing, out of control bush growth and the lack of rainfall for years, the fire quickly spread.
This is not a parallel structure because it uses a noun/verb phrase, noun phrase and noun phrases. The following sentence is correct as all nouns are used.
Because of the northerly winds, uncontrolled growth of the bush and the lack of rainfall for years, the fire quickly spread.
The use and non-use of articles
Definition of articles
English has two types of articles: definite (the) and indefinite (a, an.) The use of these articles depends on whether the noun following the article possesses one of these paired qualities:
Coffee is a popular drink.
The most popular drink in Australia now is coffee.
countable or uncountable
I drank a cup of tea.
I drank tea.
first mentioned or subsequently mentioned
A cyclist crossed Trower Road on a red light and was lucky not to be hit by a car. However, the police noticed and stopped the cyclist further up the road.
is unique or forms part of shared knowledge
Do you know I saw Tony Blair in Geneva. Do you mean the Tony Blair?
Subject verb agreement
Most students are familiar with the basic rules of subject verb agreement.
Example: I live in Darwin, she lives in Melbourne and the Scotts live in Bendigo.
Complicated sentence structures
It becomes more complicated with the following sentence constructions:
Using a noun phrase
The Commission for Renewable Energy is convening the conference in Melbourne.
The repeated scene of rioting shown on television news leads some teenagers to believe that civil disorder can be a legitimate form of protest.
Indefinite pronoun such as someone, anyone
Anyone is going to get lost in the labyrinth of the Turkish bazaars.
A phrase starting with a quantifier such as some, any,
Some breakfast cereals have nutritious ingredients.
Any part of the crowd is at risk from the military.
Phrases using either ... or and neither ... nor
The energy crisis will neither be solved by increasing the price of petrol nor by rationing fuel.
The energy crisis is not going to be solved by either increasing the price of petrol or by rationing fuel.
The result of atmospheric pollution and soil degradation is the destruction of plant life and increased respiratory problems amongst the population.
Many people who have been unemployed for several years and have given up hope of ever obtaining paid employment are beginning to think about how they might start their own small business.
Sentences starting with words ending in 'ing'
Getting into town is going to be more difficult than we think after that heavy rain.
Going without water for more than three days is going to irreparably damage the vital organs of the body.
What to avoid in formal writing
When writing an essay, it is important to construct a reasoned argument that is supported by carefully researched evidence.
The language that you use needs to be precise and uncluttered by unnecessary devices which have the potential to distract the reader, shift the meaning or detract from the clarity of the argument.
Where to avoid personal pronouns
It is usually the case that in formal writing you avoid the use of personal pronouns. These include I, me, we, us and you.
However there are instances in certain disciplines where your lecturer will invite you to use the first person. In reflective journal writing, for example, using the first person is appropriate.
Example 1: When you are reporting what you did
Instead of writing:
I prepared all the laboratory equipment for the whole group.
The laboratory equipment for the chemistry experiment was prepared.
I presented the group's findings to the class.
The group's findings were presented to the class.
Example 2: When you are referring to what you have said
As I have already mentioned, Save the Children are leading the policy discussions on the establishment of Early Childhood Centres.
As previously mentioned, Save the Children are leading the policy discussions on the establishment of Early Childhood Centres.
In each of these examples, we used the passive voice to make sure that the language sounds impersonal.
Example 3: When you want to signal that you are drawing a conclusion, use an impersonal form such as: It can be seen that...
When using this teaching methodology with children from non-literate homes, you can easily see why it will never be successful.
When using this teaching methodology with children from non-literate homes, it can easily be seen why it will never be successful.
Example 4: When you want to use evidence to arrive at a conclusion you can also use similar language.
We can see, after examining the students' results, that children are much more likely to be successful in their first two years of school if they have benefitted from preschool activities that promote cognitive growth.
The students' results show that children are much more likely to be successful in their first two years of school if they have benefitted from preschool activities that promote cognitive growth.
Making judgements: evaluations and opinions
You are often asked to present a point of view in your writing, but it is important that you do this in an appropriate way.
The words in the table below help to grade the strength of your opinion. That is, they fill in the space between 'yes' or 'absolutely' or 'no' 'not at all'. They are words which cover the 'shades of grey'.
Must Will May
Certainly Probably Might
Undoubtedly Likely/unlikely Could or possibly
You can also use the different phrases given below to show the strength of what you are saying your language by using expressions like:
It is certain that It is likely/unlikely It seems possible
It seems clear It seems probably It appears possible
It appears obvious It appears probably/likely It is possible
It is unlikely that government funding for university research will increase over the next five years.
It seems clear that the number of online courses will increase.
A cliché is an expression that has been overused.
We cannot build a new school at this point in time.
Who would have thought that slavery could exist in this day and age?
The Prime Minister believed that at the end of the day her policies would be vindicated.
A metaphor takes a name or descriptive term and applies it to a person or object in a non-literal sense.
A glaring error
Pillar of the community
A wave of terrorism
Similies
A simile compares a person, action or object with something else.
Fly like an eagle
As happy as Larry
Well-chosen metaphors and similes can give your writing immense expressive power.
Once a metaphor or simile has become a cliché, it no longer provides a vivid image for the reader.
Consequently, instead of impressing your readers with your writing style, you leave them with the impression that you have nothing of substance to say.
Figures of speech are closely related to clichés. Like metaphors and similes, figures of speech provide a writer with a colourful or forceful means to draw attention to a particular point but should be avoided in academic writing.
The cleaners were advised to lift their game or else.
Management has been on a steep learning curve.
It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Colloquialisms and slang
What are colloquialisms?
Colloquialisms are words or phrases that belong in conversational contexts.
Everybody was wandering around like stunned mullets. (Dazed and confused)
We'll all be pushing up daisies soon enough. (Dead)
In everyday speech or conversation we often contract words so that what we say does not sound too pompous. E.g. 'can not' (e.g. can't), 'have not' (e.g. haven't), 'is not' (isn't), 'would have' (would've), 'should have' (e.g. should've) and so on. However, in academic writing, colloquial forms should be avoided.
Some colloquialisms, such as slang expressions or phrases might demean or exclude other language users and must also be avoided. See inclusive language.
Padding consists of all the extra words added to writing that do not add anything to the meaning or content of the text.
redundant phrases such as 'It is interesting/worthy/important to note that ...' 'For what it's worth ...'
irrelevant material which has no bearing on your topic
'Dead' words include words which repeat other words e.g. dead corpse, combined together
adverbs add quantity but little to the meaning. Adverbs such as: really, rather, quite, totally and so on, may not enhance your expression. For example: really obscure, rather tedious.
Pomposity and pretentiousness
Sometimes writers think that by using big, unfamiliar words or complicated sentence structures that this makes their writing sound sophisticated or more important. But it usually just means that no one understands it. For example:
This author concludes that, after due and full consideration, some writers exhibit discursive practices that produce undecipherable sentences, the intelligibility of which beggar even the most sophisticated ratiocinative beings.
The sentence could instead be rewritten.
A simple rewrite: Some people write so badly that no one understands it.
A complex rewrite: Some people write in a way that makes it difficult for even quite educated people to understand them.
Texting language
Texting language is the collective term used for the shorthand way that people talk to each other using text messages, email, instant messaging and other forms of written contact. Abbreviating words is common in text language as the examples below show.
asap - As soon as possible
atm - At the moment
b4 - Before
brb - Be right back
btw - By the way
These examples and others are used in informal texting exchanges. It is important to remember that text language is not acceptable in formal writing such as essays, exams, reports etcetera.
Did you know CDU Language and Learning Advisors offer a range of study support options?
https://www.cdu.edu.au/library/language-and-learning-support

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Researchers investigated whether baby boomers would be willing to be tested for viral hepatitis during routine colonoscopies. The researchers offered hepatitis tests to 500 individuals ages 50 to 65 years during appointments for outpatient colonoscopy between October 2010 and January 2011. Of the 376 persons who accepted the offer, 346 gave blood samples and reported risk factors and vaccination history as well as their potential exposure to hepatitis. Researchers offered vaccination to participants who did not have immunity to hepatitis A (HAV) or B viruses (HBV) and scheduled follow-up meetings for those who tested positive for hepatitis C (HCV) antibodies or HBV antigen.
Of the 346 participants, 93 percent did not have immunity to HAV, HBV, or both; 240 patients tested negative for HAV; and 283 tested negative for HBV antibodies. Researchers found one or more risk factors for chronic hepatitis in 36 percent of participants; 8 percent had multiple risk factors. The most common risk factors were getting a tattoo before the year 2000 (8 percent), high-risk sexual behavior and/or having STDs (8 percent), and ever having injected or snorted drugs (7 percent). Researchers found HCV antibodies in four individuals; one person had detectable virus. All four participants who tested positive for HCV complied with testing and follow-up, and the individual with detectable virus received vaccination against HAV and HBV, improved his diet, stopped drinking alcohol, and agreed to noninterferon-based treatment.
Researchers contend that using an existing healthcare screening system is a highly desirable way of complying with CDC's recommendation for one-time hepatitis screening of baby boomers in the United States. They conclude that incorporating viral hepatitis screening with colorectal cancer screening has the potential to be an easily instituted mass-screening mechanism.
The full report, "Birth Cohort Screening for Chronic Hepatitis During Colonoscopy Appointments," was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, (2013; doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.50).


text:
Contemporary Japanese artist Nara wants to raise awareness of refugees
KYODO NEWS - Jun 15, 2019 - 21:51 | Arts, All
Contemporary Japanese artist Yoshitomo Nara, known for his paintings of a small child staring at viewers, joined a talk event Saturday to share his experience of visiting refugee camps in Jordan and called for more attention to be given to vulnerable people.
Nara, who visited Zaatari and Azraq camps in March as part of a nonprofit organization's aid activities, presented snap shots including those of smiling children, some Syrian dishes he had, and a painting he bought from an artist, and encouraged listeners to imagine being in their shoes.
"You don't necessarily have to make supporting Syrian refugees your aim," he told the audience, adding he has learned from experience that, by giving thought to people facing difficulties and starting with even small things to help them, the spirit of caring will eventually reach others.
"For me, I've come to realize that I have more ability to paint than others, so by doing that I think I could support them in some way."
The artworks of Nara, who also visited refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2002, often include messages of peace.
ザータリ(Zaatari)難民キャンプ。8万人程のシリア難民が暮らしている。2012年夏の設立当初から、難民人口に対して環境の不備に加え、犯罪、暴力事件などが多かったが、最近は落ち着いているそうだ。1週間で平均80人の赤ちゃんが生まれている。 pic.twitter.com/fNyC2d7XGP
— yoshitomo nara (@michinara3) 2019年3月9日
Although the visit was not intended to create new artworks, he said he was sure that the experience of meeting people full of life despite their difficult situation would be reflected in his future works.
"The experience (of the visit) helps me have a more realistic view of the life of refugees," he said.
As of June 2019, there were about 5.4 million registered Syrian refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Many of them stay in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
(Nara holds a painting he bought at a refugee camp)
Japan, which has maintained a strict immigration policy, has mainly accepted foreigners with high skills in such fields as medicine and law, while taking in only a tiny number of refugees.
In 2018, only 42 out of 10,493 asylum seekers were granted refugee status, according to the Justice Ministry.
Nara's nine-day trip through March 9 was planned by Japan Platform, an organization that coordinates emergency humanitarian assistance by various actors including NGOs and the government to raise awareness of the situations of refugees.
Jun 15, 2019 | KYODO NEWS
Japanese entertainers mourn death of Johnny Kitagawa
"your name." director Shinkai's new film to hit theaters next week
Ex-KAT-TUN idol pleads guilty to marijuana possession
Debate brewing over Western taste in traditional Japanese tea bowl
Marie Kondo's joy sparked by 2 Emmy nominations for Netflix show
15 minutes ago | KYODO NEWS
Store featuring Osamu Tezuka's manga characters opens in Asakusa
Exhibit combining sports manga, technology starts ahead of Olympics
Court rejects artist's copycat claim over goldfish-filled phone box
KYODO NEWS - 15 minutes ago - 09:29 | Arts, All, World