Beyond the tinseled trappings of the holiday season stands the mystery of the manger. The idea of God manifested in human flesh was not new, but the realization of it was dramatically new. Moreover, it was a once-for-all event, never to be repeated.
One of the mysteries surrounding the incarnation is God’s method for accomplishing it. Science, which deals with physical phenomena, can rightly say it has no adequate evidence for parthenogenesis in Homo sapiens. But science cannot say such an event could not occur, because then science steps outside its realm and enters the field of metaphysics. Scripture tells us that God became flesh through the seed of a woman who had never known a man but over whom the Holy Spirit came in generating power. No matter how heartily we accept the truth of this account, the mystery of it will remain as long as we continue to “see through a glass darkly.”
The virgin birth gives us some insight into a second incarnation mystery, that of the uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ. While no human formulations can fully explain the implications, Christian theology has consistently taught that Jesus Christ is one person having both a perfectly human nature and a perfectly divine nature. Never will there be a repetition of this. He is the God-man. He was born of the seed of the woman, and through her womb came his humanity. He was fathered by the Holy Spirit, and through this act of the third person of the Trinity he received the divine nature of the Son, inviolably linked with his human nature. This is a mystery. He who is determined to understand it fully may lose his mind, but he who denies its truth will lose his soul.
What purpose was in all this? Why did God the Son leave the glory of heaven and identify himself with humankind? In the answer to this question the mystery of the manger becomes much clearer. That answer, however, is to be found not in the birth of Jesus but in his death. The mystery unfolds on the brow of a hill called Calvary as two thieves and the Son of God are nailed to crosses, to be mocked by the multitudes and to die.
Calvary manifests the redemptive purpose of a loving and gracious God. The divine plan of salvation may be seen in the biblical declaration that Christ is the Lamb of God, slain from before the foundation of the world. Its outworking in history may be seen at Calvary, where three persons are crucified. Here the truth is made plain that man’s power to spurn God has consequences. Here we learn what it means to be separated from God because of sin. Here we learn that God reconciles man to himself through the death of his own Son, who takes the sinner’s place.
During the course of his suffering one thief looked to Jesus Christ for salvation, and found it. He had sin in him, for he was a sinner by birth and by choice. But when he died he had no sin on him, for he had turned to Jesus. The second thief spurned what the first accepted. He died impenitent, with sin both in him and on him. Jesus Christ, the immaculate Son of God, had no sin in him, for he was born without original sin and lived a perfect life. But he had the sins of the world laid on him as he died our death and stood where we should have stood. One thief died to sin, and one died in sin; Jesus Christ died for sin.
The virgin-born God-man came to die, thereby securing life for all who will accept it. Had there been no Calvary, Christmas would have no meaning. Those who want to be reconciled to God and receive the gift of eternal life must not remain in Bethlehem at Christmastime; they must go on to visit Calvary.
What’S In A Gift?
Although gift exchange has been appallingly exploited, the custom is recognized by social scientists as a basically good human inclination. Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss, noted anthropologists, found that exchanging gifts is even more important in primitive societies than in complex, industrialized societies. We err if we write off the practice as nothing more than a commercial conspiracy foisted upon our times.
A Christmas shopping list is best drawn up after some thought about what makes for good giving. One of the things to remember is that presents are seldom bestowed with no strings attached. Almost always, reciprocity is implied or assumed. The gifts exchanged may be in wholly different categories, of course. A friend may simply desire love or respect or loyalty in return for a poinsettia. An employer may send a basket of fancy fruit as a reward for extra services already received.
Some gifts have more in them for the donor than for the recipient—the well-known train a father ostensibly buys for his son, for example, or the alluring dress a husband gives his wife to gratify his own ego.
That may not be all bad; the recipient may treasure all the more a gift whose value can be shared. But it does serve to remind us to examine the motives behind our gift-giving and to look at long-term effects and values, rather than trying for instant excitement that may quickly fade.
Books, records, and—we say it impartially—magazine subscriptions are relatively inexpensive gifts that, though they seldom provoke outbursts of glee, nonetheless offer longlasting worth. Unexpected personal letters and photographs likewise cost little but rank among the most thoughtful “presents” at Christmas. Indeed, anything creative that transfers something of the giver is bound to carry a special significance.
This is not to say that high cost in itself is a disqualification. Some good gifts run steep, such as a Holy Land tour purchased by a congregation for its pastor and his wife. A trip or a sabbatical can be an experience from which both the recipient and those whom he serves derive benefit.
The very best gifts are those that serve to nourish the relationship between the recipient and God, who himself set the example in giving us his Son.
The Gilt-Ridden Jesus
Humility with strength earmarked Jesus throughout his lifetime. Anyone seeking to represent him, even as merely man, would have to deal with humility that isn’t effeminacy and strength that isn’t mere petulance. On Broadway Jesus Christ Superstar fails to do this (see News, page 42).
Jesus came in meekness, without splendor. But in Superstar he is portrayed in shimmering robes of gold and silver—a triumph, a wonder, and a failure. Jesus provides Broadway with spectacle but not salvation. The impact of the record, of the questions it asked but failed to answer, is destroyed in Tom O’Horgan’s production.
There are no real questions in this show, just bawdy symbolism, irrelevant gyrations, and vulgar theatrics. The rock opera’s thoughtful, discerning awareness of a generation’s concern with Jesus and his identity is lost and probably will remain so (a movie from the record is next).
Jesus Christ Superstar, despite major criticism from prominent New York critics, is a monstrous theater success, sold out through the winter months. Even blasé Broadway is amazed. Those who have tickets stand in front of the theater for an hour and more waiting to see a superstar. Instead they see a superhoax.
Making No Amends For Prayer
Although it was defeated by only twenty-eight votes (see News, page 39), the “Prayer Amendment” has been laid to rest—but not in peace, in the minds of many.
“A vote for this bill will be a lot easier to explain than a vote against,” declared Representative G. V. Montgomery (D.-Miss.) during House debate on the issue, noting that opposition to the bill might be interpreted as opposition to prayer itself.
As we have said in these pages before (October 8 issue, page 32), the scuttling of the amendment, designed to allow “voluntary prayer and meditation” in public schools, was in the truest sense a victory for religion. But we realize that an explanation is in order. We favor prayer in public schools just as firmly as did backers of the amendment.
Even school authorities, congressmen, and clergymen—most of whom should know better—persistently believe that the U. S. Supreme Court decisions of 1962 and 1963 banned prayer and Bible reading from public classrooms.
That is simply untrue. If they are the private prayers of an individual, or the group prayers of students meeting on their own time of their own volition, they are clearly permissible under the terms of the court rulings. Former associate justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the high court decisions, said several weeks ago that “all that has been held unconstitutional is the practice of having a required mini-worship service at the beginning of the school day. This is a far cry from banning religion from the public schools.” Only state-composed or -sponsored devotions were ruled out by the Supreme Court. Although a school board may not provide a period for voluntary worship (even before school hours), individuals within the school (students and/or teachers) may initiate voluntary prayer sessions.
We urge Christians to work vigorously to do everything constitutionally legal to bring religion—even evangelical Christianity—into the classroom. For example, the Constitution does not restrict use of the Bible as a reference work for teaching secular subjects or the study of Scripture for its literary and historic qualities. Objective instruction in comparative religion and study of the history of religion and its role in the advancement of civilization are permitted. There is no ban on reciting historical documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, which refer to God, or singing the National Anthem or patriotic hymns that include the composers’ expression of faith. And the Supreme Court has not ruled against references to God in patriotic or ceremonial occasions.
We hope the Supreme Court will rule in the near future on some decisive test case to uphold teaching about religion and voluntary prayer in the schools. Thus the air will be cleared of persistent misunderstanding, and evangelicals will have added confidence about their right to witness to historic, biblical faith without infringing on the religious freedom of all U. S. citizens.
William Culbertson
Since 1942 the name of William Culbertson has been indissolubly linked with Moody Bible Institute, where he served first as dean and then as president. Death has snatched him from our midst, but he has left us much.
During his tenure the institute grew appreciably. New building after new building graced the Chicago skyline in a run-down neighborhood that has improved immeasurably as a result of redevelopment programs. Thousands of churches and millions of people have been helped by Irwin Moon’s films, produced under the institute’s auspices. Radio station WMBI has blessed multitudes, and Dr. Culbertson’s familiar voice was welcomed in many Christian homes.
Dr. Culbertson was a doughty defender of biblical orthodoxy, a gifted expositor of Scripture, and a teacher and administrator of great talent. Serving a constituency that is sociologically as well as theologically fundamentalist is at best a difficult task. He performed it skillfully and graciously. He leaves behind him as a legacy a strong school, a faithful band of alumni serving Christ around the world, a magazine, a publishing house, a radio station, and the Institute of Science, all of which are stronger and more fruitful as a result of his dedicated labors.
Captivating Air Force Academy
Dr. Harvey Cox of the Harvard Divinity School, Dr. David Hunter, deputy general secretary of the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Balfour Brickner of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and Sister Mary Luke Tobin of the Catholic Sisters of Loretto demanded that they be allowed to address a mandatory formation of cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado. Their purpose was to propagandize the students about the morality of the Viet Nam war.
These people have every right to their views, and freedom of speech guarantees the further right of expressing these views publicly. But freedom of speech does not give them the right to impose their opinions on people and institutions that for one reason or another do not want them. The Air Force Academy was perfectly within its rights to refuse them permission to air their views at a mandatory gathering of cadets. Indeed, if such permission had been granted, why shouldn’t a hundred other organizations and individuals request similar privileges? Why shouldn’t Carl McIntire, Billy James Hargis, and the John Birch Society—to mention a few who hold a different viewpoint—all be given an opportunity to address the cadets? We suspect these four people knew their request would be refused and may even have thought it should be. But the attending publicity provides them with a visibility they seem to welcome.
What would happen if the Air Force people demanded equal time at a mandatory chapel (is there one?) service at Harvard Divinity School to present their viewpoint? And who could visualize the paid secretariat of the National Council of Churches sitting as a captive audience to hear the Air Force generals? The shrieks of outrage would probably exceed anything the nation has heard so far.
This zealous but misguided foursome should realize that the people whom they should be trying to persuade are their representatives in the halls of Congress. There is little likelihood that they could accomplish much by haranguing the Air Force cadets, who are neither as naïve nor as uninformed as the action of this group seemed to imply.
Wages And Prices: Phase Ii
Phase One of the government’s game plan for stopping inflation gave way to Phase Two amid the howls of many whose self-interest seemed threatened. Rarely is there any evidence of a desire to put aside personal gain for the common good. Human nature remains selfish; few of us have conquered this baser instinct.
Among the few things that seemed reasonably clear in the opening weeks of Phase Two were these. First, we are moving inexorably toward a fully controlled economy. Which political party is in power makes little difference. The unhappy fact is that few people are willing to pay the heavy price necessary for a real return to a free market. The principles that undergird a free economy have been abandoned in practice though many still pay them lip service.
Secondly, inflation will not be stopped, though its pace may be slowed for a while. It will go on as long as the printing presses keep increasing the money supply and deficit financing is a way of life. As wages continue to increase with no commensurate increase in productivity, prices will continue to rise and the old merry-go-round will keep on turning.
Thirdly, individual freedom is being circumscribed as government becomes more and more centralized and power is concentrated in Washington. Eventually economic, political, and social crises will arise that will test the fabric of our democracy. When these come, we will have good reason to fear dictatorship unless current trends are reversed. Multitudes of people seem willing to sell their freedom to gain financial security; they seem unaware that the loss of freedom could well entail the loss of economic security as well. The example of the Roman Empire stares us in the face, but, as has often been observed, we are much less likely to learn from history than to repeat its mistakes.
John Kenneth Galbraith, the socialistic economist from Harvard, predicted in a letter to the Washington Post in February, 1969, that wage and price controls would come. “Wages will always shove up prices,” he said, “and prices will always pull up wages and this spiral will revolve for Republicans and Democrats alike.” Galbraith knew only too well that the prevailing economic philosophy in American life would inevitably lead to controls. The only way to prevent this would have been to modify the underlying Keynesian philosophy that has prevailed for some decades and that now seems accepted even by the Republicans. Whether this could have been done is a moot question.
Now we are reaping part of the harvest, and there is no doubt more to come. The laws of God pertain not only to spiritual things but to physical and economic realities as well. Even as the man who defies the law of gravity by stepping out of a tenth-story window will die, so those who defy the economic realities of life will pay a heavy price.
Fire On The Prairie
Surges of spiritual renewal can now be sensed around the world at a level higher than ever before directly experienced by most people now living. The latest manifestation of revival fire is in Saskatoon, one of the large metropolitan areas in the Canadian prairie provinces. Initial reports suggest that it is no mere pious kick and that it might be spreading to other parts of the continent.
The awakening began with a single congregation. The people of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Saskatoon had been praying for two years, and on October 13 they began what were to have been ten days of special services with the Sutera brothers, an evangelistic team. But people from many denominations started pouring in, and soon a dozen churches were cooperating. To accommodate the crowds, the meetings had to be moved three times to larger quarters, then to packed-out double sessions at the biggest sanctuary in the city, which belongs to the United Church of Canada. After a month, the campaign was still going strong.
The meetings featured little singing and only brief sermons, sometimes none. Mostly, people simply got up to share what God was doing in their lives. Numerous conversions were reported. People testified their praise to God, vowed new dedication, confessed sins, extended apologies, offered forgiveness, and told of deliverance from selfishness and other sins.
Businessmen in Saskatoon told newsmen that many persons were seeking to make restitution. Police said the behavior of young troublemakers was changing radically; especially notable was a dramatic overnight decline in drug use. (More than half of those attending the meetings were young people.)
Sunday church services went on for five hours. These were followed by two evening services, each attended by 1,800 with hundreds more in an overflow auditorium. Nightly meetings were capped by smaller “afterglow” sessions lasting into the early morning hours. Busloads of people from other Canadian cities descended on Saskatoon as the word spread. Churches and Christian schools throughout Canada were asking for teams to come and share with them.
Saskatoon is a city of more than 100,000 that has prospered materially despite dry summers and cold winters. Interestingly, it was founded in 1883 as the proposed capital of a temperance colony. That goal has long been forgotten, and as in many other sophisticated urban centers, the moral climate has deteriorated progressively. Now the warmth of revival promises to reverse the trend. Although the calendar says that winter is coming on, with average temperatures hovering at 0, the spiritual thermometer is rising.
What’S The Opposite Of Duplicity?
There is a virtue so rare that we don’t seem to have a word for it. The corresponding vice is duplicity. But if we use the word simplicity to speak of a virtue to which one should aspire, we might be considered simpletons. Yet, upon reflection, how fitting the word seems to describe the virtue that stands behind James’s command: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation” (5:12).
James is concerned not with the formalities of legal procedure but with the need that people feel to distinguish between different levels of discourse, that which we really mean and that which we do not necessarily mean. The requirement in our society for sworn testimony is a continual reminder that men are given to duplicity, that we can’t simply take one another at our word. Christians should not have to find themselves uttering such words as “I really mean it” (often said after a compliment or warning), for it implies that we don’t always mean what we say.
James tells us in effect that the standards of speech applicable in courts of law should govern us so consistently that if we were to appear in court we would not have to change. How much gossip, how much equivocation and improper speculation would be eliminated from the conversation of Christians if we really let our yes be yes and our no be no. How many unkept promises, how many unsupportable claims of achievement, how many unprovable accusations would be left unspoken if we truly applied James’s standard.
As we reflect on the call to simplicity (or consistency) we must not forget that James introduces it by telling us that of the commands he has given, this one is “above all.” He warns us that indifference to this command makes us liable to “fall under condemnation.” Let’s make simplicity as characteristic of the people of God as duplicity is of mankind generally.
