Abraham’s son Ishmael has come back to haunt us in the religion of Islam, which is Christianity’s greatest competitor for the hearts and minds of people around the world. With more than 538 million adherents, it is the second-largest religious grouping today. Apart from Christianity it is geographically the most widespread of all the religions. North America has 242,000 Muslims, South America 195,000, Europe 8 million, Asia 432 million, Africa 99 million, and Oceania 66,000 (the figures are from the 1976 Britannica Book of the Year).
Islam has as its heartland the Mideast, history’s traditional focal point. It is solidly entrenched at the point where three great continents intersect—Europe, Africa, and Asia. North Africa is overwhelmingly Islamic, Turkey is Islamic, and Europe has 8 million Muslims. Except for Israel, which is a tiny reminder that Abraham had another son, Islam controls the conjunction of these three continents.
Economically, Islamic nations can now determine the destiny of virtually every nation through their near monopoly of the earth’s energy resources, vital to every technocratic society. They have already exerted this leverage once and helped to produce the greatest economic slide since the depression of the 1930s. No one can predict with any certainty what would happen to the world should these Islamic nations turn off the oil supply that keeps even the richest nations afloat.
As a religion, Islam has great strengths. It is monotheistic, believing that Allah is sovereign as well as merciful and compassionate. It believes in the certainty of a just judgment day, insists on a continuous life of prayer, has a world-wide outlook, is aggressively missionary, and almost worships the Koran as a book dictated by God from heaven. The peripatetic merchant in Africa with his prayer rug is a familiar sight, and his evangelistic zeal often surpasses that of the Christian.
All these things make it difficult for Christians to evangelize the Muslims; they have been highly resistant to the Gospel. However, in recent years in places like Indonesia there have been some better results. Tribute should be paid to the Dutch missionaries who originally sowed the seed in an infertile soil; those who followed them are beginning to reap a richer harvest.
Quite recently the North American Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization agreed to pay special attention to the Muslim world. This quickening interest should be shared and promoted among the thousands of students who will assemble at Urbana for the Inter-Varsity Triennial Missionary Convention.
We fervently hope that PACLA, the African missionary congress that is to convene in Nairobi shortly, will also pay great attention to Islam and its almost 100 million adherents. Some of the most oppressive black political regimes in Africa are controlled by Islamic leaders whose actions at best have been capricious and at worst have resulted in the deaths of multiplied thousands of Christians and non-Christians.
Muslim evangelism requires a well reasoned strategy and certain commitments, the absence of which would impede a large-scale effort from the start. The kind of evangelism that will succeed calls for dedicated souls who will immerse themselves in the culture and the religion of Islam. They must live among people whose governments do not permit outright evangelism, people who will be influenced by the quality of the lives of Christians who are not missionaries as such. Such persons may not live long enough to see any large-scale results. They must plant the seed that future generations will see ripen to harvest.
They may have to enter college or a university, and bear their witness to a younger generation that has been exposed to systems and cultures that offer alternatives to the closed system of Islam. They may have to suffer persecution, endure the criticism of those of an alien faith, and enter into the deeper anguish of Calvary unknown to the many of us who have enjoyed the comfort of the Cross and not its burden.
The Islamic nations have a responsibility they should be reminded of in this age of great change. They have used freedom of religion to make converts in many nations, including the United States, but they have often denied freedom of religion in principle and in practice in their own bailiwicks. They should practice the principles enunciated in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Will the Christian Church rise to the challenge of a vigorous and aggressively evangelistic Islam? If it does not, its failure will be a betrayal of the Gospel as well as a breach of faith with the Lord of the Church, who died for the Muslim as much as for the animist, the Hindu, and the atheist.
More Gambling, More Losing
“You win some, you lose some,” says the philosophical gambler. He believes it. And even though studies have proven repeatedly that he loses much more than he wins, he keeps on believing that he will be a big winner.
Apparently, most Americans agree with this outlook. When citizens around the nation voted last month in state and local referenda, in most cases they stuck with the status quo. The one major area of change was gambling. Although not all the gaming proposals passed, significant ones did. In Colorado and Vermont, state lotteries were approved. New York City voters overwhelmingly favored legalization of “Las Vegas nights” in such places as churches. The most spectacular and best publicized of the gambling victories was New Jersey’s vote to permit casinos in Atlantic City.
Canadians too have fallen for the illusion that they have more to win than to lose in government-approved gambling. The first draw was scheduled this month in the new national lottery that offers nine $1 million prizes.
Estimates vary, but there is little disagreement that at least $1 million was spent in the campaign to get New Jersey to authorize casino operations. Gambling is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry in the United States, and it pays off handsomely for some of the operators and their suppliers. There is money in legalized, state-operated gambling for printers, designers of games, computer houses, advertising agencies, and consultants. There are so many people working at it now that they have trade associations, conferences, a Public Gaming Research Institute, and a quarterly magazine (Public Gaming).
All these “winners” like to suggest, however, that in legalized gambling it is the public that benefits. At the fourth National Conference on Public Gaming last month in Florida, keynoter Raymond S. Blanchard said, “We’ve got to convince people we’re not in the gambling business. We’re in the public revenue business.” The fact is that government treasuries get only a small portion of the overall income of these gambling schemes and that what they get is only a tiny part of their total revenue. In its report last month the National Gambling Commission pointed out that “gambling profits represent, on the average, 2 or 3 per cent of the annual state-level revenue in states where one or more forms of gambling are legal.” One of the commission’s studies also noted that initial predictions of profits are usually much too optimistic. As legalization spreads there will be more and more competition (and therefore higher advertising costs) for the bets. Mayor Abraham Beame of New York City has already served notice that he will work for state legislation to allow casinos, lest New Jersey steal away the tourists that would otherwise go to New York.
Perhaps the biggest loser of all is society in general. When government encourages a “something for nothing” philosophy and large numbers of people pin their hopes on it, both the individual citizens and the community suffer. People salve their consciences about the hungry and hopeless by saying they contributed through their bets in the charity sweepstakes.
Christian stewardship does not permit such poor investments. Responsible governments should not count on the income from such undependable ventures. And communities such as Atlantic City (where casino advocates said that the resort would be “born again” with the legalization of gambling) should be prepared to cope with a young Frankenstein as the infant grows.
Who Remembers Pearl Harbor?
A surprise attack devastated the United States fleet based at Pearl Harbor thirty-five years ago, and December 7, 1941, took its place in history as a day of infamy. However abominable the deed, from a military viewpoint it was brilliant. Have we learned anything from it?
There seems to be a widespread notion that in any future war, both sides would “fight fairly.” We might think of Pearl Harbor as a fluke and tend to dismiss it, since the Japanese lost the war after all. However, surprise attacks have often wreaked enormous destruction of life and equipment. In a nuclear age they might be more determinative of the final outcome than before.
The Japanese attacks on Port Arthur in 1905 and Pearl Harbor in 1941, the German attacks on Belgium in 1914 and again in 1940 and on Russia in 1941, the North Korean attack on South Korea in 1950, and the Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel in 1973 were similar not only in the element of surprise and initial victory but also, curiously, in the fact that each time there was considerable evidence that the attack was impending! Henry Owens, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, outlined this evidence in a brief article in the Washington Post last month. Human beings at times are too ready to believe what they hear, but at crucial times they are often unwilling to believe really ominous warnings.
There are lessons to be learned from this. Some of them pertain to the military preparedness needed to deter—or, if that fails, to defeat—possible aggressors. Another concerns spiritual preparedness—readiness to meet God, either individually at death or collectively at Christ’s return. The Scriptures tell us that people will have ample warning of Christ’s second coming but will still be caught by surprise.
God has warned us that we must one day stand before him. Even if we are caught by surprise, we will have no excuse for being unprepared.
What Is It That America Wants?
Even the best minds have a hard time conceiving of what a good social order would really be like. This was borne out in October when seven of America’s most respected intellectual leaders came together to explore “the nature of a humane society.” John Kerr, who reported and analyzed the symposium for Religious News Service, said that after about fifteen hours of erudite and often brilliant talk, the audience of nearly 1,000, who had paid $50 each for the experience, went home with a lot to think about and not much idea of what to do.
At the start of the symposium historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., made a remark that other speakers echoed: “What is essential is to comprehend the frailty of human striving but to strive nevertheless.” Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins said: “I am not oppressed by, nor do I shrink before, the apparent boundaries in life or the lack of boundaries in the cosmos.”
Perhaps we ought to be thankful for even that much optimism, given the magnitude of the world’s problems today. Yet one wonders whether the pluralism that is now so much a part of America has not produced our greatest problem: the lack of agreement on where we should be going. How can a people be mobilized toward an undefined moral end?
The symposium, held in Philadelphia, was sponsored by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. Regrettably, little effort was made to bring biblical insights to bear on the proceedings. The only presenter who dwelt at length on his own understanding of the Christian faith was space scientist Wernher von Braun. (He was ill and unable to attend; his paper was read for him.) Von Braun asserted that “religion, like science, is evolutionary, growing and changing in the light of further revelations by God.” He urged Christian churches to “become a little more flexible with regard to various interpretations of the Bible as a historical account.” That disappointing view of Scripture holds little promise.
Modern human beings resist God because his demands fail to conform to certain specifications. But when we begin to analyze those specifications we become doubtful as to where they lead. When we come right down to it, we don’t really know what’s good for us. So we don’t know where we want to go, much less how to get there. And that situation, when realized, leads us to look to God. May he grant that it will be so.
Surviving the Spotlight
Despite what the Washington Star described as “a media circus of the worst kind” outside, the Plains Baptist Church took care of some congregational business one Sunday last month. As practically the whole world knows, it reversed an untenable policy denying membership to blacks. And the pastor, who opposed the old policy, got a vote of confidence (albeit a slim one).
That church building in a small south Georgia town and the people who worship there have been in the spotlight for nearly a year. The attention directed at the Plains Baptists because of the faith of their most prominent member almost wrecked the building and the congregation (see News, page 50). That they have survived is almost a miracle. Many groups in similar circumstances would not have been able to handle the pressure.
We commend the Plains Baptists for coping with the crisis. We commend them for the gracious welcome they have given to an unusual number of visitors. Most of all we commend them for officially (even if belatedly) opening their doors to all who confess Jesus Christ. And we urge other Christians to give prayerful support to the Plains Baptists as they carry out the new policy while continuing in the spotlight.
Christmas Has a Context
Advent season brings with it an emphasis on Christ’s birth and infancy, his entrance onto the human stage. As the Living Bible puts it, he “became a human being and lived here on earth among us” (John 1:14). Twice-a-year churchgoers know little more about Jesus than a few facts concerning his birth and crucifixion. Many of the world’s people know even less, but what they do grasp concerns his humanity more than his deity.
The good news of the Gospel is incomplete without reference to the Incarnation. But the good news is so much more significant when the hearer understands the context. Christ’s life was not limited to the years he spent in Palestine twenty centuries ago; he existed before the earth was formed.
The first chapter of John’s Gospel places the life of this extraordinary person in its proper context; “He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (v. 2). His omnipotence is clearly indicated here, but so is his humility. To come into the world and to assume the frail body of a man he had to leave his heavenly place of authority and power.
Unlike any other person who had ever lived on earth, Jesus represented life and light (v. 4) and grace and truth (v. 14). Unlike any other person who ever walked the pathways of this world, he represented God: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (v. 12). Indeed, he was “the only Son” of God (vv. 14 and 18).
John the Baptist recognized him as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (v. 29). Andrew identified him as the Messiah (v. 41), and Nathanael called him the King of Israel (v. 49).
Jesus Christ did come to earth as the babe of Bethlehem, but that event is weighty because he was the everlasting God before he appeared in Palestine and while he “dwelt among us,” and is the everlasting God now as he sits on the right hand of the Father in majesty and power.
