Will war break out again in the Middle East? If Anwar Sadat’s intrepid peace initiatives fail to bring results, war is possible. Sadat could be pressured into war against Israel, along with the other Arab countries. If Egypt and Israel reach a separate peace, Syria, Iraq, and Libya could start a war.
The Soviet Union seems uninterested in peace; but they also seem uninterested in all-out war. Its leaders want the situation to simmer so that they can regain some of the influence that they have lost in the past few years. The Soviets want a Palestinian state that would be dependent on them to emerge on part of the territory now controlled by Israel. The conservative Arab monarchies do not want a sovereign Palestinian state. They fear a Cuba-like exporter of revolution in the region.
Christians watch Middle Eastern politics with intense interest. Because some Christians believe that the restoration of the State of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, they think that opposing the Israeli government is the same as opposing God. Such an attitude is only possible for those who do not understand the difference between what God has revealed to us as our responsibilities and what God has told us will happen. Babylon was fulfilling a prophecy in conquering Judea, but had there been any God-fearing Babylonians at the time they should have worked to prevent such a conquest. Yet it would be unwise to deny that there is no eschatological significance in the events of the Middle East. Christians should form their political, ethical, and military judgments on the basis of general principles for nations and for justice that are revealed in Scripture. These principles should apply to all regions of the world, not just to the Middle East.
There is a strong case for the right of Israel to exist securely and peacefully. This case can be made by appealing to biblical as well as to commonly accepted standards. Christians everywhere should promote peace in the Middle East. And that surely means that some provision must be made for the displaced Palestinians. Until they have been settled there can be no peace.
But if war breaks out in the Middle East this would not mean that American Christians had a responsibility to Israel to urge the United States government to send troops to the defense of Israel. That would bring in the Soviet Union, just as Soviet armed forces in the Middle East would cause United States intervention. Israel is strong militarily, and unless the Soviet Union sent troops into the area the United States would not provoke war.
The many Christians who see a fulfillment of prophecy in the establishment of the State of Israel also believe that the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled when “Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage’ ” (Isa. 19:24, 25).
Who Will Be Next?
Last February a student group at Wake Forest University gave Larry Flynt its “man of the year” award. In view of Flynt’s reputation as publisher of Hustler, a magazine that by general agreement is much more offensive to biblical standards of morality than Playboy, Wake Forest was widely chided for permitting the award.
Interestingly, in our editorial comment (see the April 1 issue, p. 36), we said that “if Eldridge Cleaver and Charles Colson could be converted, Larry Flynt could be, too. In our repugnance at his activities we must never allow ourselves to forget that he is not yet beyond the redeeming grace of God.” Despite these remarks we were as surprised as anyone to learn that late last month Flynt publicly professed his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ (see the December 9 issue, p. 50). Flynt is currently appealing a conviction that led to a twenty-five-year federal prison sentence and $11,000 fine for pandering, obscenity, and conspiracy with other people for such criminal activity. The conviction itself (by a local Cincinnati jury with reference to the nationally distributed Hustier) raised various first amendment questions and may yet be set aside on technical grounds.
Sceptics might be inclined to think that Flynt’s profession of faith is an attempt to influence the appellate court. It this is so, it could well backfire. In any case, appeals are evaluated on the basis of legal points, not on the convict’s character.
It is certainly possible that Flynt’s profession is genuine, since he stands to lose much more from feigning Christian commitment than by fighting for sexual libertinism. We hope that he recognizes that the conversion of none other than the Apostle Paul was doubted by many in the infant church (Acts 9:26) and so will not be unduly offended at those who doubt him. Flynt also needs to recognize that Paul’s former cohorts turned against him (Acts 9:23). Flynt should not be surprised if the same thing happens to him assuming he brings his business activities under biblical scrutiny.
We urge Christians to recognize that even if genuinely converted Larry Flynt is, like every other new-born, very much a babe in Christ. When a person is already a celebrity (or notorious), it is hard to drop out of sight as a Christian, although that would certainly have advantages for fostering normal Christian growth. The Christian public, and the general public for that matter, should not expect mature pronouncements and decisions from a celebrity any more than from any other new convert. On the other hand, even new Christians are expected to tell others about their conversions. Critics who expect Flynt (or Colson or Cleaver) to be quiet are not reckoning with Scripture or with the interests of the media.
The pressures upon Flynt will be greater than those on most new adherents of Christianity. He needs the understanding and the prayers of God’s people. And he needs the companionship and counsel of more mature Christians to face the challenging days ahead.
Larry Flynt may not deserve a “man of the year” award, but perhaps in time he will prove to be the “most changed man of the year.” If Larry Flynt can come to genuine repentance and faith in Christ, should Christians give up on anyone? Is Madalyn Murray O’Hair next?
Improving Postal Service
Few if any Americans were convinced that the reorganization of the postal system earlier this decade would bring instant improvement, but most hoped that things would get better in a reasonable period, say five years. Ending the spoils system that pervaded the administration of neighborhood and village post offices was a commendable goal; more businesslike operations was another. Citizens hoped for quick, dependable mail service.
That has not happened. Although a few improvements have been made, Americans are probably as unhappy with their postal service as they have ever been. Among the unhappiest are those people who send and receive religious periodicals. Drastic increases in mailing costs have strained budgets and in some cases have contributed to the closing of journals. And the higher costs have not resulted in better mail delivery.
The deteriorating situation was such a threat that the four major associations of religious publications joined forces to present a common front. They hired a Washington lawyer to alert them to the myriad of proposed changes in postal laws, rules, regulations, and rate hikes. While working with officials of the existing system to try to get better service, the representatives of this Protestant-Catholic-Jewish coalition also worked behind the scenes to change the system. A postal reorganization bill, H.R. 7700, the first visible result of that work, has cleared committee in the House of Representatives and is ready for floor action. (A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate early next year.) This measure is no cure-all, and will not please everyone, but it makes significant changes that could mean better service. Essentially, sponsors of the legislation believe that it puts service at the top of the list of the postal system’s priorities.
A main feature of the bill is abolition of the board of governors that now runs the nation’s mail service. This board was responsible to see that the postal system used business methods, at the same time that they were to retain many public service type features. (It was probably unrealistic to expect that it could work.) The Postal Rate Commission will be retained. Under this proposal the principal administrator of the postal service will be a postmaster general appointed by the President. With the current interest in disclosure of backgrounds and connections, any such appointee will be closely scrutinized before confirmation by the Senate. But it will be the commission, not the postmaster or Congress, that will set rates. Since Congress will retain the right to veto new rates, it will have a major influence on the whole system’s revenue. In addition, the bill would authorize more congressional appropriations for certain types of services. All in all, these provisions are intended to make the system more responsive to public concerns. Traditionally, the postal service has shown that by charging less for non-profit than profit mailers. By comparison, utility companies do not normally give reductions to non-profit organizations.
H.R. 7700 also provides more equitable treatment of non-profit publications in a number of technical areas. These changes are needed because non-profits were hit much harder than for-profit journals when the postal service began increasing the rates. (The increases were about four times higher than those imposed on the for-profit press.)
Charles Emmet Lucey, postal counsel for the religious press associations, put it well in a recent issue of Journal of Legislation: “Congress must restore the previously understood concept that the nation’s mail operation must be a ‘service’ and not a profit-oriented business.” We believe H.R. 7700 is a worthy attempt in this direction. If it, or something similar, does not pass soon, more religious journals are heading for trouble.
