Physician, Heal Thyself
The Federal Trade Commission recently unlimbered some of its biggest guns for barrages against misleading advertising. It made an investigation to see whether, for example, various sports figures really drink the Miller’s “Lite” beer and other potions they advertise. And now deodorant manufacturers are being called on to justify the type of advertising that says their product encourages personal friendship. All this is very encouraging, especially to those of us who have always been inclined to take advertisements at face value. But now the time has gone for the FTC to turn its attention to what is, after all, the biggest advertiser in America—indeed, in the world: the government itself.
We could start with the names of government agencies and bodies. First of all, of course, the most prestigious government ministry ought to be called the Department of Travel. And wasn’t it better to call the Department of Defense the War Department? During the 158 years the United States had a War Department, the nation was involved in only fourteen years of war (not counting Indian wars, which came under the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian “Affairs”)—less than one year in ten. Since it has been a Defense Department, twenty-seven years, there have been nine years of war, more or less—one in three. And of course it is misleading to call the Internal Revenue Service a service. Wouldn’t it be more honest to call it—as the French do—a Department of Fiscal Impositions? Supreme Court “justices” might have to call themselves “opinions” or even “self-righteousnesses.” The biggest department, Health, Education, and Welware, would be more honest if it called itself the Department of Treatment, Custody, and Waiting Lines.
Fortunately, the FTC is not allowed to interfere with religious claims, under the First Amendment. Otherwise popular “crusades” would have to be renamed something like “conventions” or else start wielding maces and broadswords in their efforts to “win the world.” Evangelistic literature would have to bear warnings such as: “Caution. The Inspector General Has Determined That Tithing Is Dangerous to Your Wealth.”
The task of achieving truth in packaging is immense; pessimists might consider it hopeless. But we have to give credit for its successes, too. At the center of it all there is a big building that is correctly and informatively called simply The White House.
Divorce: Refreshing View
You are to be commended for the two fine articles, “When Wedlock Becomes Deadlock” by Andre Bustanoby and “Ministering to the Divorced” by William L. Coleman (June 20).… It is truly refreshing to read something other than the static treatment so commonly and legalistically dispensed whenever the subject of divorce is discussed in the church-related life and program. Graceless legalism has had a heyday, and it goes without saying that the church of Jesus has lost many that could have been and should have been embraced, loved, nurtured, and utilized.… Thanks for the scriptural and gracious approach.
(The Rev.) JOHN W. STEINHAUSER
Superintendent
Union Rescue Mission, Inc.
Jamestown, N. Y.
Andre Bustanoby’s attempt to reconcile Old Testament provisions for divorce with Jesus’ prohibitions by claiming the former is for unbelievers and the latter for Christians seems highly unsatisfactory. In the first place, the Law was given to God’s people—believers, not unbelievers. In the second place, the author’s attempt to reconcile the Old and New Testament teachings is based on pushing too far the statement that the law is “holy, just, and good.” So he has to say that “divorce in itself is (not) immoral” because it is according to the Law. To be consistent with that position would require him also to say that slavery is not immoral and that even taking a man’s wife and children away from him for purposes of slavery is not immoral (see Exodus 21:1–4). Furthermore, Bustanoby’s establishment of a double standard of morality, one for Christians and another for unbelievers, denies any absolute morality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it. Then the author inconsistently cites divorce of unbelievers as revealing “the basic sinfulness of the husband and wife.” How so, when he has just pronounced their divorce “not immoral”?
Editor
Victor Books
Wheaton, Ill.
Where Women Abound
I have always held Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in high respect for his intellectual insights, but in his article in the July 4 issue (Footnotes, “The Battle of the Sexes”) I wonder if he has missed the boat in several points. He tries to make the point that man is the head of the family since he was created before Eve. The logical conclusion would be that the baboon or the apple tree is head over Adam, having preceded him in the creation order. Scripture tells us that the opposite was God’s plan.
Further along in his article Dr. Henry says that none of the above conclusions justify discrimination against women in areas such as legal rights or work opportunities. If, as he pronounces, woman is to be subordinate to man, it would therefore be very difficult for her to work in any capacity where she had authority over any man. Incidentally, to confirm the widespread evangelical position on women’s subordination in almost every area of work, how many women professors of Bible or missions can one find in evangelical schools of higher education? And if such appear scarce, let’s try looking for women mission-board executives or even board members. The only place women abound in missions is out on the front lines while the men stay comfortably at home making the “important decisions.”
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Negative Reek
Your usual responsible reporting was little evidenced in the article on the 187th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church (June 6). It seemed Dr. James Boice was championing his own causes and biases. If he wants to editorialize, fine. Call it that, but do not put the article directly under the heading “News.” How can he call the assembly a “one-issue assembly” when only thirty minutes of the eight days were devoted to the so-called Kenyon Case? The article reeked of negativism.
Second Presbyterian Church
Chester, Pa.
More Members Than Communicants
Re the news story “Conservative Presbyterians: Unity, Yes; Union, No,” in the July 4 issue; I would like to correct an error regarding the membership of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is 15,098 and not 10,186, as you report. The latter figure is that of communicant members, which the note at the bottom of the page makes plain is not the statistic given.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Chapel
Glenwood, Wash.
