From the beginning man has been confronted by Satan’s unceasing attempt to destroy God’s absolutes and to substitute a rationalization of spiritual and moral values that carries in it the seeds of destruction.

When God said, “You shall not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden,” Satan’s response was, “Did God say?” When God told Adam that the penalty for disobedience was death, Satan offered a flat denial of God’s word. “You shall not die,” he assured Adam.

God had good reason for his “You shall not.” He knew that the result of disobedience would be broken fellowship between himself and man, a continuing warfare between man and Satan, the cursing of the ground, and the shame of nakedness and expulsion from the garden he had prepared for man.

And Satan’s method has never changed. Now, as then, he gains his victory by offering an apparent advantage if man will disobey God. Sometimes he offers that which is “good for food” and which gives physical satisfaction—thus exploiting the “lust of the flesh.” Or his temptation may come in the form of a “delight to the eyes” (esthetic pleasure), which the Bible refers to as the “lust of the eyes.” Or it may lie in the area of that which is “desirable to make one wise,” spoken of in the Bible as the “pride of life.” Satan will offer us as much of this world as is necessary to keep us in his domain. And he is not deterred by the fact that the Bible says all will one day be destroyed: “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever” (1 John 2:16, 17).

The implications of our Lord’s own temptation in the wilderness are obvious. Changing stones to bread—this represents the merely physical. A leap from the pinnacle of the temple—this would be something spectacular, eye-catching. All the kingdoms of this world (without the Cross)—this stands for the pride of life in the world. The “first Adam” succumbed to Satan; the “second Adam” was completely victorious.

In the victory of the Son of God is to be found our victory. Through faith in his sinlessness we can become righteous.

God’s spiritual and moral absolutes have never changed. He is the only God, and he alone is to be worshipped (idolatry in any form is forbidden). His name is sacred and holy and not to be taken in vain. He has laid down the principle of one day in seven to be set aside for God and for physical rest, mental refreshment, and spiritual renewal. Parents are to be honored. Man shall not murder, nor shall he take or even covet what belongs to another. Lying is forbidden.

To all this Satan replies that there are no absolutes—a statement that is not only a lie but an absolute in itself. But lying does not deter the devil, for he is “a liar and father of lies” (John 8:44). He speaks through “situation ethics” to declare that one’s actions should be determined by circumstances—thus giving precedence to man’s opinion over God’s command.

Satan goes on to try to convince man that there are many gods, all worthy of consideration and all pointing to the same ultimate goal. Then, too, he intimates that idolatry is not basically wrong; it only shows man’s “innate religiousness.”

As for the misuse of God’s holy name—that, he tries to say, is a small matter. Perhaps it is revealing that cursing and blasphemy are now found even on the lips of some who profess to be Christians!

The Sabbath? A relic of the past with no binding obligations for man today. The rebellion of children against their parents? “That’s what a lot of them deserve” the devil avers. Murder? Satan’s cleverest trick is to instill confusion over the difference between judicial exercise by a government and the wanton taking of life by an individual, either with premeditation or in sudden anger.

Adultery? Circumstances may justify such acts, we are told, and promiscuity is not too bad, provided there is protection against undesirable physical consequences.

Satan also tries to convince us that stealing may be all right under some circumstances. And as for diverting the Lord’s money into secular, political, or purely social programs—perfectly all right, of course!

Lying and bearing false witness must be recognized as a natural part of living in today’s world, the devil tells us. And what about coveting? Sure, get all you can, whether by inflated prices or by decreased productivity in labor. We are in the world to succeed. Use any method necessary to get what you think you should have.

What is God’s reply? “Break these absolutes and they will break you,” for “the wages of sin is death.”

Confronted with God’s absolutes man finds himself in a predicament: he cannot, unaided, have victory over either self or Satan. Furthermore, there is the ever present call to go ahead and live as he pleases. And the undeniable fact is that man—the sovereign of his own will—is at liberty to reject God and his revelation of truth, reality, sin, atonement, and forgiveness. Or he can surrender to God and by faith alone gain victory through Christ.

On the one hand there is Satan, the consummate liar, deceiver, and fraud, and on the other, God, who is ever loving, kind, forgiving, and compassionate. Man is free to choose Satan and his lies, or Jesus Christ and his atoning work.

God never requires of man anything for which he has not made provision. Man has the ability to accept and the responsibility to believe he is accountable for his actions.

The builder of a house is confronted with absolutes having to do with measurements, materials, and methods; these are known as the building code. If he complies with these standards, he will produce a good house. If he disregards the code, the house will be dangerous to live in.

Life also has its “building code” governing morals, spiritual values, and man’s relationship to God. This code is being violated on every hand, and as a consequence chaos permeates every area of the social order. Life is a one-way street—God’s way. But Satan leads in the opposite direction, and physical and spiritual death await the traveler who follows his leading.

There is one gloriously sure solution set forth in Romans 8:3, 4: “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.”

There is only one way—God’s way.

THE PLEISTOCENE GAP

He came wandering into the cave out of the Pleistocene mist idly scraping the bark off a twig with a sharpened stone.

“Where have you been?” asked his mother, giving the rabbit on the spit another turn over the fire.

“Outside.”

“Outside where?”

“Just outside.”

“Doing what?” she persisted.

“Just thinking. Sitting and thinking,” he replied wearily. Then he sank onto the bearskin by the fire.

“You do too much thinking,” she said, with an edge in her voice. “There are things that need to be done. We need new arrows and spear heads. Baskets need weaving. Your father is getting a little disgusted with your lack of help.”

“Oh, Mom,” he said, flinging the twig into the fire. “What do you and Dad know? Don’t you realize we have no future? Our race is doomed.

“What good is it going to do to make better spears and arrows when the game is disappearing. Why make new baskets when the berries are giving out?

“Don’t you realize that it’s just a matter of time? There are just too many of us for the food supply. Why just the other day there were several fights over a single blackberry bush!

“And besides, with the invention of the bow and arrow, the whole race could be wiped out overnight.

“Things can’t go on like this forever. There’s just no way out. Nobody will limit his number of children. Each tribe is afraid the other will become larger and stronger and take over.

“We live with a sort of balance of terror. It’s all so pointless.

“There’s nothing to do. The council of elders just sit around the fire grunting and scratching their fleas. They won’t listen to those of us who really know what’s happening. We’ll just have to resign ourselves to the end.”

“Perhaps if you presented some alternative …”

“There is no alternative,” he snapped.

“Well,” she began hesitantly, “perhaps there’s no alternative in sight, but God could provide one. He might help us understand why some berry bushes grow larger than others so that we could make them all grow big …”

“God!” he shouted. “You dream.” And still shaking his head he rose and marched out into the mist.

SALVATION, BUT NO JUSTICE

The article “A South African Christian Confronts Apartheid” (Nov. 19) presented a good viewpoint from a white Christian with a troubled conscience about the race problem. It is refreshing to see a thoughtful Christian realizing that there are not good answers to a lot of these questions. Many others who write or talk on the subject take dogmatic, theoretical views with no evidence of considering the difficult problems involved and with a humanistic approach rather than a scriptural approach.

But let me raise some further questions. Cassidy says the division of land is unfair because it is not equally divided. This is a matter that has never, in any country, been worked out on an equal-division basis, even among whites. I am doubtful even that it should be attempted. I cannot find any statement in the Bible that indicates all land or all wealth should be divided equally.… I believe that every person should have the opportunity to accept the salvation offered us through the death and resurrection of Christ. This is true whether he is black or white, rich or poor, educated or illiterate. Would an equal division of land or wealth facilitate the acceptance of salvation? Does the attempted integration in this country facilitate that? I think not.

As a human being, I want to see justice to all; but it would be silly, in my opinion, to expect justice in a world dominated by wickedness. In this world, I may get a different kind of injustice than a black person, but I could recite a long list of what I consider personal injustices. It would be unrealistic to expect anything else in this life. And I can thank God not only for the new life in Christ but for the injustices and other trials that have come to me, knowing that tribulation works patience and that it is through troubles that we find the greater blessing of Christ.

Chairman of the Finance Committee

Genesco Apparel

Nashville, Tenn.

IN FOCUS

I have just finished reading “Big Churches—Yes! No!” (Nov. 5). This is as terse and succinct a setting forth of the pros and cons as I have seen on this rather important matter. Both Towns and Davey are to be thanked for sharpening the “focus” for us. Thanks and appreciation also to CHRISTIANITY TODAY for making the debate available to us.

First American Baptist Church

Hayward, Calif.

The defense of the “big” church on the basis that it can provide specialized or expert help, adequate buildings and transportation, in my thinking is not valid, is not patterned after the normative apostolic church, and is not helpful to the individual. The sad thing about this thing is that the little and the feeble man for whom all these services are meant is lost sight of.… I wonder what has happened to that New Testament and Reformation concept that the Church is not to become sacerdotal, but that the priesthood belongs to the entire church membership with Jesus our High Priest. For over a thousand years the Church was under the influence of the specialists, and it was “big”; but it became stagnant and failed in its mission to evangelize the world. I believe that the Church will never fulfill its God-given mission until lay members and preachers as partners unite their efforts in the work of witnessing for the power of the Gospel. The big church is not the answer.

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Niles, Mich.

I believe that the answer lies somewhere between the two positions.… It seems that every metropolitan area should have a large, full-service church. However, such a church should define well in advance its point of quantitative maturity. Once this point is reached, vertical development should give way to horizontal development. For example, “bus congregations” should become the nuclei of daughter churches.

The mother church should remain dynamic in this change of developmental direction and should continue to provide central leadership and “full service.” The daughter churches could remain within the framework of a close working relationship with each other and with the mother church, giving maximum force to the evangelistic outreach and community service of the whole.

It can be predicted with almost complete certainty that this approach will result in a greater total enlargement of the kingdom of God in the community, and this should be our real aim. Also, the leadership and influence of the pastor of the central church will be broader, deeper, and more lasting in this program than in a program of interminable vertical growth at the central locus.

(THE REV.) J. W. JEPSON

Lyons, Oreg.

SHAKY SOURCE

It was good to see “The Missionary Retreat” (Nov. 19) supported by figures gathered from reliable sources. Regrettable, however, was the indication that the sole cause of the retreat is a deluded theology—bowing to syncretism and neo-universalism. I wish you had mentioned the number of evangelicals who are tired of playing leapfrog evangelism (escape mechanism?) and tired of hearing that questionable premise “foreign (?) missionary outreach is a primary sign of a denomination’s spiritual health.” From what source did you get your premise?

Baptist Church of the edeemer

Brooklyn, N. Y.

Your editorial correctly pointed out the fact that we have a cancer; the even greater tragedy is that we injected this death into our bodies by a willful act. Our leaders asked us to trust in them and to ignore God and we did; our leaders laughed at evangelism and we applauded; our leaders made fun of the Word of God and stopped using it in the curriculum and we began to die. Our leaders used God-words but those words had no meaning. We turned away from God and he in sorrow turned away from our denomination. And the cancer has kept growing. Many of us consider the preaching of the Gospel to be the task of the church. We still consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God and Jesus Christ to be the only way a person can be brought into a right relationship with God. Our denominational leaders have decided to sleep with humanism and existential theology and they have given birth to a monster.

First Baptist Church Youth Pastor

Santa Clara, Calif.

NO PROVISION

Thank you for John W. Duddington’s interesting and stimulating article “The Red Herring of a Three-Story Universe” (Nov. 5), and particularly the discussion of the spiritual status of creatures in other worlds. Concerning this latter subject, it could also be noted that some possibilities are suggested by what Scripture tells us of the angels. Some of them did not fall, hence need no redemption, whereas it would appear that in the case of those who did fall no provision was made for their redemption.

Boulder, Colo.

UP THE LADDER

The implication that Christians must choose between “elementary and secondary or higher education” is unfortunate (Editorials, “Settling Educational Priorities,” Oct. 22). It is time that Christians realize the importance of each element of the educational ladder.…

In the near future the distinctively Christian college will find significant support from those who were concerned enough to send their children to the Christian school. The colleges that communicate the distinctives of a Christian world-and-life view will be supported by Christians who were convinced regarding these values before their children entered college. Of what practical value is the Christian college to the parent whose child’s faith was destroyed before he graduated from high school?

It is misleading to suggest that a “great new volume of facilities” will be needed. Existing Sunday-school facilities are waiting to be utilized (as recently proposed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY) at little or no cost. We are hoping that the influence of CHRISTIANITY TODAY would support education that is Christian from kindergarten through university.

Executive Director

Natl. Assn. of Christian Schools

Wheaton, Ill.

EXPOSING GOSPEL MUSIC

Thank you for your news story “Bad Day for Blackwoods” (Nov. 19). Many of us here on the Canadian prairies have had very little exposure to the gospel music business in the south. Your article was most enlightening, and I hope you will continue to carry coverage of some of the major events in the field of gospel music (such as the week-long singing conventions held each year in Memphis). Many of us have wondered about some of the practices of these professional groups and are trying to decide whether they should receive the support of evangelical Christians. Articles such as the one written by Cheryl Forbes will capture the interest of many people here where gospel music has had a very limited market, but where it seems to be on the increase.

Avalon E.M.B. Church

Winnipeg, Manitoba

STRIKING AGAINST IRRESPONSIBILITY

Just a brief clarification on reading the letter to the editor (Dec. 3) by David Gill of the Christian World Liberation Front. Could I possibly have been unpleasant to such gracious people in doing my article on Revel’s Neither Marx nor Jesus (Current Religious Thought, Oct. 8)? I make it a practice never to criticize faithful disciples! Actually, I was striking at the irresponsible tendencies in the general “Jesus freak” phenomenon, not at any particular group—and certainly not at the CWLF, whose former Right On editor, Mark Albrecht, has been one of my Ararat co-explorers. Perhaps CWLF people shouldn’t be so sensitive, though! There is the story I used to tell (before the onset of Women’s Liberation) about the woman who jumped up when a speaker said, “Women wear funny hats,” and screamed, “I don’t wear a funny hat!” Is it possible I touched a raw nerve—a tendency which responsible CWLF people are themselves trying to correct?

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Ill.

CREATIVE CHRISTIANITY

My thanks to Leon Morris for his article “Conservative Evangelicals?” (Current Religious Thought, Nov. 19). For some time I have been disturbed by the kind of conservatism among evangelicals that tends to subordinate Christian belief, thought and practice to an ideology, even if it is “conservatism.” It’s time that Christians cast aside meaningless terms like “conservative” and “liberal” and went about their business—God’s business. The Christian should not weigh down the teaching of the Bible with any alien mode of thought. Rather we should do what is expressly commanded, avoid what is expressly forbidden, and apply our intelligence, reason, and creativity to that wealth of experience that remains.

Mansfield, Pa.

WHICH ‘GOSPEL’?

Samuel Mateer (“The Two Christmas Stories,” Dec. 3) offered a worthwhile suggestion to Christian parents in dealing with the Santa Claus myth. In researching for some messages on why we as Christians believe there is a God I came across the following two quotes from atheists which lend added support to Mateer’s point. In the 1967 Gallup Poll which reported on the belief in God among Americans a woman doctor was reported to have said, “If you believe in God you believe in Santa Claus, and if you believe in Santa Claus where are you then?” (L.A. Times, Dec. 31, 1971). Secondly, the National Observer featured a full-page article on a group of atheists in Washington, D.C. The article contained the following quote: “Those God-in-heaven images taught by religionists, says Mr. Curry [the leader of the group], are meant to convince people that ‘they have important friends in high places.’ He adds: ‘The man with the long beard sitting up there on a cloud—ridiculous! Children hardly get over the Santa Claus myth when they have this other one shoved down their throats’ ” (Sept. 1, 1969). Though the two questions are hardly comparable in either the evidences or the gravity, it seems that the ideas are all too often associated. The opponents of the faith have not failed to utilize this situation in spreading their “gospel.” Christian parents should consider Mr. Mateer’s suggestions seriously.

(The Rev.) TIMOTHY D. CRATER

Atlanta, Georgia

When Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from his Nazi prison cell that the world had “come of age,” he launched a phrase that was to journey through the theological world for decades. What did he mean? Has the world grown up? If so, what does this mean for the Church in its mission and structure?

Bonhoeffer believed the world had come of age in the sense that the “hypothesis” of God is no longer considered necessary to account for man and his world. This is now true not only in science and philosophy but even in religion itself.

Bonhoeffer noted, “Ever since Kant, [God] has been relegated to the realm beyond experience” (Letters and Papers From Prison, Fontana Books, p. 114). He insisted that a realistic Christian apologetic must openly accept man’s new godlessness and, in the midst of the new scientific world-view, confront him with Christ.

Was Bonhoeffer right? What kind of world is ours?

It is a “seculurban” world, a world that has been secularized and urbanized. Yet it is also a world in which new superstitions rush in where old beliefs feared to tread; a world where city man can be just as isolated and insulated—and just as parochial—as his rural forebears. The secular city is becoming re-enchanted.

Secular man (with the possible exception of some “secular theologians”) is facing a failure of nerve. What was heralded as man’s adulthood, his pinnacle of self-confidence, is being undermined by self-doubt.

Rather than coming of age, our world has, it seems to me, come full circle, returning in several key respects to the spirit of the first-century Roman world. Therefore this age to which we have come may be the best possible one for the effective proclamation of the biblical Gospel.

Recently E. M. Blaiklock observed, “Of all the centuries, the twentieth is most like the first: city-ridden, marred by tyranny, decadent, and wracked by those crises that man’s abuse of man and of his native earth engenders” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, May 7, 1971, p. 6). This parallel between today and the new first century has also been suggested by (no less!) futurologists Herman Kahn and Anthony J. Wiener of the Hudson Institute. In their 1967 book The Year 2000 they note that “there are some parallels between Roman times and ours” and suggest, “Some of the prospects for the year 2000 are, in effect, a return to a sort of a new Augustinian age” (p. 189). Discussing current culture, they say that “something very much like our multifold trend occurred in Hellenistic Greece, the late Roman Republic, and the early Roman Empire” (p. 193).

Kahn and Wiener explain this “multifold trend” as essentially a trend toward an increasingly sensate, secular, pragmatic culture; the accumulation and application of scientific and technological knowledge; the increasing tempo and institutionalization of change; and increasing education, urbanization, and affluence.

This analysis is particularly interesting when placed alongside Adolf Harnack’s list of first-century conditions that nourished the growth of the Christian faith (The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Harper Torchbook edition, pp. 19–22). Some of the parallels with today’s conditions are striking, as when Harnack speaks of “the blending of different nationalities,” “the comparative unity of language and ideas,” “the practical and theoretical conviction of the essential unity of mankind”—and, especially, “the rising vogue of a mystical philosophy of religion with a craving for some form of revelation and a thirst for miracle.”

Seven Signs Of The Times

Comparing the cultural climate of the late twentieth century with that of the first-century Roman Empire reveals several interesting parallels. Let us look at seven of these.

1. An essentially urban world with cities playing the major cultural role. The urban flavor of the first century comes through clearly in the Book of Acts and in Paul’s writings. In contrast to most of the Middle Ages and the first 150 years of American history, the Graeco-Roman world was a cluster of cities. It was the world of Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, Thessalonica, Sardis, Philadelphia, Smyrna, Laodicea, Ancyra, Antioch, and literally hundreds of other cities. Rome, the largest, had a first-century population of possibly one million, and the population of Alexandria has been estimated at 500,000. Many cities apparently had populations in excess of 100,000 (including slaves); we know the stadium at Ephesus could seat 25,000.

Estimates of the first-century population of the total Roman Empire vary, but sixty million seems reasonable. Of this total, perhaps as many as ten million, or about 15 per cent, lived in major cities of 100,000 or more. Considering the large number of smaller cities then in existence, possibly nearly half the population lived in cities—a situation that later changed drastically.

The important fact, however, is not percentages but influence. Regardless of the percentage actually “urbanized” (by today’s standards), it is clear that urban life and culture played the predominant role in the first century. The city was the place to be; the Book of Acts reflects this.

The fact of urbanization today—not only in America but worldwide—is too well known to need elaboration. We say ours is an urban age, which it is, even though in actual fact only about one-fourth of the world population lives in metropolitan areas of more than 100,000, according to Gist and Fava (Urban Society, fifth ed., p. 68).

Thus one can trace an urban parallel between the Roman Empire and the world today—statistically, but especially culturally. For urbanization is more than a quantitative development. “Urbanization means a structure of common life in which diversity and the disintegration of tradition are paramount,” in which “high mobility, economic concentration, and mass communications have drawn even rural villages into the web of urbanization,” notes Harvey Cox (The Secular City, p. 4). Despite Cox’s contention that this is a strictly twentieth-century phenomenon, the first-century parallel is significant.

2. Unparalleled peace, stability, and political unity. “War is one of the constants of history,” note the Durants in The Lessons of History. “In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war” (p. 81). Yet the Christian faith burst into the Roman world during a time of unusual peace: Caesar Augustus had stabilized the entire empire, bringing about a peace unparalleled in history.

At first glance today’s world hardly appears peaceful, what with Viet Nam, the Near East, Pakistan, urban and racial strife, and other areas of conflict. Yet by contrast with the past, and considering today’s lightning social revolutions, the era since 1945 has been remarkably peaceful. Despite local turbulence, the world shows a surprising overall stability. Many people think a major war is less likely now than it was ten years ago.

Certainly no worldwide political unity comparable to the Roman Empire’s position in the Mediterranean world exists today. Yet the far-flung American military presence, plus the caution induced by nuclear fear, plus other factors, have combined to produce what may be a “functional equivalent” of the Pax Romana. Even the United Nations, for all its ineffectiveness, has been a stabilizing influence.

3. The “worldwide” spread of one predominant culture and language. Greek culture predominated in the first-century Roman world. Throughout the Roman Empire—even in Italy—Greek was the common second language. Greek ideas were adopted or mimicked in nearly every province. Roman children were taught in Greek.

The parallel with American influence today (for good or ill) is striking. School children from Russia to China study English. The world goes to American movies and adopts American styles. America is still the world’s primary exporter of technological and scientific innovation, though Japan’s influence is growing in this area.

4. International travel, communication, and cultural interchange. Roman roads (52,000 miles of them, according to one estimate) are legendary; their safety and maintenance in the first century find parallel only in our day. Businessmen, government officials, military personnel, and others traveled extensively and with ease throughout the empire. Knowledge and communication mushroomed, creating something like a first-century equivalent of our “knowledge explosion.”

The situation is similar today, but now on a nearly worldwide scale. Never before has travel been so easy, so safe, so comparatively cheap. Businessmen, students, educators, tourists, government personnel travel continually to almost all parts of the globe; even China is beginning to open up. Worldwide trade has reached unparalleled levels. Cultural exchange—both official and unofficial—goes on apace, often unnoticed.

Then there is the world of modern mass communications—satellites, national and international publications (at newsstands here in São Paulo one can often find Time, L’Express, Stern, and other foreign magazines on sale), the wire services, unprecedented book publishing, and especially television. A dramatic demonstration of this system was the worldwide live TV coverage of the first manned moon landing in 1969.

In short, ours is the communications age. Important new ideas and events quickly become the possession of the world. The situation is unparalleled—but, on its own scale, the first century was remarkably similar.

5. Pervasive social change, with a tendency toward a humanizing, universalist, “one world” outlook; a feeling that mankind is essentially one and shares a common destiny. Any broad movement of men and ideas tends to unravel the fabric of tradition and produce social change. This was true in the days of the early church. Harnack cites Ulhorn’s description of the first-century world:

Ancient life had by this time begun to break up; its solid foundations had begun to weaken.… The idea of universal humanity had disengaged itself from that of nationality. The Stoics had passed the word that all men were equal, and had spoken of brotherhood as well as the duties of man towards man. Hitherto despised, the lower classes had asserted their position. The treatment of slaves became milder.… Women, hitherto without any legal rights, received such in increasing numbers. Children were looked after. The distribution of grain … became a sort of poor-relief [or welfare] system, and we meet with a growing number of generous deeds, gifts, and endowments, which already exhibit a more humane spirit [Harnack, op. cit., p. 22].

This description depicts not only the age of Paul but also, to a surprising degree, the contemporary world.

Zbigniew Brzezinski notes in Between Two Ages, “We have … reached the stage in mankind’s history where the passion for equality is a universal, self-conscious force.… The passion for equality is strong today because for the first time in human history inequality is no longer insulated by time and distance” (p. 111). Scaled down to fit the first century, nearly the same could have been said of the Roman Empire. The passion for equality was not as great, but it was present and growing. And its essential presupposition, that mankind is essentially one, was a powerful molding force then as now.

6. Widespread religious and philosophical ferment; the mixture and “relativization” of world-views; the rise of new religions; a practical atheism and disbelief in “the gods” coupled with an existential mysticism. Here we have, theologically, the most characteristic first-century condition—and the most important one from the standpoint of the Christian faith. And it is here that the parallel with today’s world is the most impressive.

We note four more or less distinct first-century trends here. The first was a “practical atheism” resulting from a strong reaction against traditional religion and its gods. Popular writers ridiculed the gods of traditional mythology. “Thoughtful people reflected on the cruelties, adulteries, deceits, battles and lies attributed to the gods, and they were repelled,” comments Michael Green (Evangelism in the Early Church, p. 17). By many, traditional religion was no longer taken seriously.

A similar rejection is occurring today. There is growing disenchantment both with ideology and with traditional religion—whether this takes the form of rising skepticism as to the truth of Marxism in Communist countries, the abandonment of historic beliefs in Africa and the Orient, or reaction against institutionalized Christianity in Europe and America. Ours is “the age of volatile belief” (Brzezinski), of “the end of ideology” (Daniel Bell), of “relativized world-views” (Harvey Cox). As Brzezinski notes,

In our time the established ideologies are coming under attack because their institutionalized character, which was once useful in mobilizing the relatively uneducated masses, has become an impediment to intellectual adaptation, while their concern with the external qualities of life is increasingly felt to ignore the inner, more spiritual dimension …

Compelling ideologies thus are giving way to compulsive ideas.… Yet there is still a felt need for a synthesis that can define the meaning and the historical thrust of our times [op. cit., p. 64; italics mine].

Secondly, this religious ferment was characterized by the rise of new, intensely emotional religions and the resurgence of some of the other Oriental faiths. In the Roman Empire the cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras (the last imported from Persia) were particularly popular, but there were others. “By the first century A.D. the Graeco-Roman world was inundated with mystery cults of this sort,” notes Michael Green, and “the enthusiasm engendered by these cults was great” (op. cit., p. 20).

This development finds many present-day parallels—the resurgence of some Buddhist sects, the popularity in the West of Indian guru Krishnamurti, the phenomenal spread of spiritism, in various forms, in Brazil, and the new religions of Japan, of which Sokka Gakkai is the best known. All these and similar movements have in common an intense emotiontal nature that concentrates more on experience than on belief.

A related parallel here is the popularity of astrology. Green cites “the rise and great popularity of the pseudoscience of astrology in the last century B.C. (ibid., p. 21). The contemporary resurgence of astrology is well known and has been amply reported in the popular press. (See, for example, the Time cover story, “Astrology and the New Cult of the Occult,” March 21, 1969).

A third aspect of contemporary aud first-century religious ferment is the rise of an irrational mysticism and an emphasis on experience rather than reason. Notes Kenneth Scott Latourette, “The intellectuals were despairing of the ability of the unaided human mind to arrive at truth” (A History of the Expansion of Christianity, I, 131). As we have already noted, Harnack cites this as one of the “external conditions” of the first-century world.

The situation today looks like a replay of the first century. Both a contemporary conservative Protestant (Francis Schaeffer) and a secular political scientist (Zbigniew Brzezinski) have spoken of modern man’s “escape from reason.” Experiencing is the thing (whether through political radicalism, drugs, communal living or Oriental mysticism); one has only to look at the mess we’re in today, it is said, to see where rationalism leads. A kind of return to romanticism has set in.

A fourth trend indicating religious ferment is a general theological and ideological confusion and quest for new directions. For the first century, this was largely the fruit of rising disbelief in the traditional gods. The popularization of Plato’s philosophy and his attacks on the gods left thinkers of the day in a philosophical and theological vacuum. The traditional gods were dead. What was to take their place?

The modern parallel here is the theological confusion of the sixties with its various bizarre spin-offs, and the move today that calls into question the whole development of Western thought since Descartes and Kant and calls for a new biblical theology. Robert J. Blaikie’s recent book “Secular Christianity” and God Who Acts (Eerdmans, 1970) and Francis Schaeffer’s God Who Is There are significant in this regard.

7. Moral degeneration. I add this last condition with some hesitation, since it has been so often cited and overworked. Yet it does seem to suggest another parallel between the world today and the world of the early Church.

Three Objections

Where there are parallels there are also contrasts. Three particular differences between today and the first century must be considered.

1. First, our age stands at the end of twenty centuries of Christian history, whereas the first century was a pre-Christian age. Considering this, are the parallels we have noted really valid?

While this fact is important, it does not disqualify the point we are making here, for two reasons. One is that Judaism had spread rapidly throughout the Roman world during the four centuries prior to Pentecost. During this time Judaism was an intensely missionary faith, and we may suppose that its leavening influence was something parallel to the role of Christianity today.

The other qualifying factor is Christianity’s remarkable self-renewing capacity. Many times, at the very moment in history when the visible, institutional church was dying and funeral preparations were under way, the Christian faith was quietly being reborn in new movements that only later became recognized. There is some evidence that this is happening today. Christianity may be, at one and the same time, one of the old, traditional religions being abandoned and one of the new, dynamic, emerging faiths; this seems to be happening in the United States right now through the “Jesus revolution.”

2. A second difference is the totally new fact today of computerized technology, the “technetronic revolution.” Here there is no real first-century parallel. Yet there is something of a negative parallel. While computerized technology is a new fact, many react against it by turning to irrationalism and mysticism—parallel to the first-century reaction against contemporary philosophy and science.

The implications of the technological revolution for the Christian faith will be far reaching and need to be studied thoroughly in our day. Jacques Ellul’s books, especially The Technological Society, are particularly important here.

3. Finally, we note that the Roman Empire was not really the whole world but only a restricted part of it, whereas today we think in truly worldwide terms. Yet this is precisely the point I am making here. We are seeing emerge a situation similar to that of the first-century Roman Empire, but today on a worldwide scale. Christianity was born into this Roman world “in the fullness of time,” and turned in right side up. May not this happen again in our age—worldwide?

Looking Ahead

We are shocked and dismayed by spiraling crime statistics and other indicators of moral decline. But rather than being shocked, perhaps we should look at these indications in another light. For we as Christians know that the true Church of Jesus Christ can never be in any real danger of extinction. Institutionalized religion may decline. Immorality may grow. But perhaps even through these things God is preparing a new revolutionary outbreak of the Gospel that will once again alter the course of human history. Christ came “in the fullness of time,” when the stage was set. And God is setting the stage today for a great moving of his hand—perhaps the last great moving in the world’s history.

There are encouraging signs—the Jesus movement among American youth, revivals on Christian college campuses, unprecedented evangelical religious publishing, fantastic Pentecostal growth in Latin America, revival in Indonesia and some parts of Africa, new openness to the Gospel among Hindus in India, new and persuasive voices in evangelical theology. It may indeed be that the world is coming of age in the most profound sense—coming to recognize its utter need for a sure word from the living God.

Prophecies such as Joel 2:28–32 were not exhausted on the Day of Pentecost. A fund of biblical prophecies remains stored up for our day, and not all these prophecies speak negatively of judgment. God will yet do a new thing!

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters

shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the men-servants and the maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit … And all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered” (Joel 2:28, 29, 32).

Howard A. Snyder is dean of the Free Methodist Theological Seminary in São Paulo, Brazil. He has the B.A. (Greenville College) and the B.D. (Asbury Seminary).

Criticism seems woven into the fabric of American life. Professional critics of the arts have long been part of the pattern, helping us decide which books to read and plays to see. Adding splashes of color and sometimes knotting the threads are current critics of war, critics of government, critics of pollution, critics of industry, critics of young people (and their “establishment”), critics of older people (and their “establishment”). The hawk or the polluter or the industrialist, the young person or the older person, will bristle at one—at least—of these types of critics. But the type we all would vote for as the one most likely to annoy is the critic of persons—specifically, of us. Personal criticism is the least appreciated kind.

All criticism is hard to take; constructive criticism is hard to give. Perhaps some principles and examples will help bring the gracious give and take of criticism into the realm of possibility.

To welcome the critic is to disarm him. Much criticism is built on uninformed assumption, on imagined slights, or on second-hand opinions. If we resent the criticism, and with it the critic, building bridges of relaxed communication becomes impossible. By reacting indignantly we assure our critic that he has in fact touched a sore spot, a tender, inflamed part of our ego that needs some kind of therapy. Many times prejudice will melt in the warmth of welcomed opinion—and in this way we often gain a friend and prevent further criticism.

The Value Of Self-Criticism

One way to avoid criticism is to be critical of oneself. Nothing so quickly brings oneness in a fellowship as leaders’ willingness to share their failures and ask for prayer. James did not say, “Confess your faults one to another—that is, of course, all except the elders among you.” Missionaries are reluctant to confess wrong or failure to national brethren, and pastors to members of their church, for fear of losing their influence for good. Many parents cannot bring themselves to confess failure to their own children and ask forgiveness. What we find difficult to believe is that a frank and guileless admission of inadequacy, an honest confession of mistaken opinion, does not lose us the respect of others; rather, it encourages the spirit of togetherness that makes mutual learning possible. Brokenness and the setting aside of pride, with a desire to be utterly real, melts hearts together as nothing else can.

Fellowship in which Christians are honest before others about their failures is the kind that convicts non-Christians of their sins and often leads to their conversion. One might think that the non-believer would be convinced of the truth of the Christian message and attracted to Christ only by exemplary conduct in Christ’s followers. Although this does happen, more frequently it is the convicting work of the Spirit leading Christians to open confession of sin that results in a similar work in the hearts of non-believers. This has been a pattern in all the great revivals.

A missionary friend who has had a long and varied ministry in India wrote recently:

If there is one thing more than anything else that I believe retards the spiritual progress of the churches in this country, it is the almost total lack of a capacity for self-criticism. What is seen of this within the churches is but a reflection of its existence in a much wider sphere. In the public press, for example, one frequently reads expressions of offense and indignation at someone who has dared to criticize some policy or project. The workman who has done a shoddy job will insist that his workmanship is of the highest quality even when every flaw is pointed out. If this attitude is not purged from the church, spiritual progress becomes practically impossible. How we need to learn to see ourselves as God sees us and allow him to tell us through whom he will.

A Japanese missionary working in Indonesia has said, “We Japanese can work until we drop, but we cannot say we are sorry.” He went on to remark that apologies come easier to the Western missionary, but I wonder. They do not come easy to any of us. We need to guard against being unassailable, against being where a critic cannot get at us. If our judgments and decisions are right, we have nothing to fear from opposition to them. But if they are wrong, only good can come from being open to correction. The gravest danger is to become unwilling even to risk a contrary opinion. Fenelon wrote that we should place no confidence in any but those who have the courage to contradict us with respect and who prize our welfare above our favor.

Criticism That Hurts

Of course, criticism is not always offered in love. I recall some lectures given to missionaries by a visiting theologian of note. He was expounding a controversial point of view about the Lord’s return, and he knew some of the evangelicals present would not agree with him. I can still see his chin jutting out and hear his sharp emphasis where it hurt most: “You think you are right, but you’re wrong!” Although I agreed with the content of his message, everything within me rebelled at his unbending dogmatism and unloving spirit. I wished I could have disagreed with him. He was trying to teach by persuading, instead of persuading by teaching, and judging by the resulting furor, the method was calamitous.

Another form of criticism equally offensive may follow someone’s public testimony of how the Lord has dealt with him and taken away all the hate he felt for another person present, whom he names. He may, out of any number of motives, include a few details about what caused the hate. People then may forget to thank the Lord for the grand victory over hateful feelings and instead criticize the low so-and-so (now squirming in the meeting) who could have caused all this distress.

However, whether criticism hurts or not is really up to the one criticized. The whole experience can throw us upon the Lord in a new way and teach us a little of what he experienced when he faced “the contradiction of sinners against himself.” Brooding over wounded pride can cause bitterness, by which, the Bible says, many are defiled.

A missionary I know was rudely criticized in front of fellow missionaries at an annual conference. Instead of retorting in kind he took the trouble to invite the critical missionary and his family to stay with him at the next conference. He did all he could to show love in a practical way, and they became firm friends. The root cause of the criticism dissipated in the atmosphere of mutual trust.

Norman Vincent Peale has suggested that we can meet hostile criticism on three levels: emotional, rational, and practical. Controlling one’s emotional reaction is the most difficult, for criticism is a direct attack on one’s self esteem. But if we resent our critic, we only poison ourselves. We must force ourselves to be dispassionate, to pray for the critic, to bless him. It may help to reflect that all leaders have been criticized, though this line of thought can be dangerous if it is used to justify a persecution complex and steer away from honest heart-searching.

The rational approach urges that we examine the criticism carefully. Dr. Peale quotes Theodor Leschetizky, the great piano teacher, who remarked that we learn much from the disagreeable things people say, for they make us think, whereas the good things only make us glad. Certainly making excuses for ourselves only compounds the original error. Another stimulus to objectivity is to examine the qualifications of the critic. What is his motive? Is he sincere? In many cases, a dignified silence is the best response. If a reply is necessary, it is sufficient to state the facts without any attempt at retaliation. On the practical level, Dr. Peale suggests that we meet the critic with kindness, which is what my missionary friend sought to do.

A sure way to invite criticism, of course, is to become the critic. To speak to someone heatedly, bent on reprisal, can result in nothing but harm. If, on the other hand, we feel increasingly that we must face someone with words that we know will be difficult to hear as well as to say, then we will go with humility and love. Criticism offered under a sense of Spirit-led constraint and moral necessity is one of the most exacting and costly ministries there is. Its effectiveness depends a great deal on the critic himself. However, one cannot always be sure that loving criticism will be received in the same spirit. Time and place are important, and one needs to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s guidance in this as well as in the matter of what is said.

Criticism In The Early Church

Although the critic as such is not once mentioned in the Bible, his function is often seen in the lives of the prophets and apostles. Paul urged Titus to exhort and reprove with all authority (Titus 2:15), though the word “reprove” here is only one aspect, and a negative one at that, of criticism. The loving response of Priscilla and Aquila to another’s need (Acts 18:26) is a more positive example. On hearing Apollos give a deficient exposition of the Gospel, they took him aside and told him where his preaching was lacking. That Apollos took the criticism well is clear from the way his preaching immediately changed to the blessing of many (Acts 18:28). The history of the early Church is punctuated with similar incidents that show how alive the apostles were to the needs of others.

Paul’s life provides some moving examples of love in critical action. He rebuked Peter publicly before the Antioch church for his momentary defection from the purity of the Gospel because it stemmed from fear of public opinion and had affected others. It was a public defection calling for public rebuke (Gal. 2:11–14). That Peter bore no grudge is evident by his later remarks about Paul in his second letter (2 Pet. 3:15). Mark felt the keen edge of Paul’s moral distress when he failed Paul and his companions at Pamphylia (Acts 15:36–40); this rebuke may have had something to do with Mark’s later becoming a very useful fellow worker (2 Tim. 4:11). Love that aims for the supreme good of another will on occasion cut in order to cure.

From his holy indignation at incest in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:3–8) to his impressive courtesy in pleading with Philemon not to criticize his runaway slave, Paul demonstrates how to express criticism in the noblest manner.

We all face occasions requiring us to give and to take criticism. We need to be certain when we are giving it that our criticism burns from “holiness that is love on fire.” And we must learn to take criticism with love for our “enemy,” the critic. If we all examine our own eyes for beams and ruthlessly cast them out, we can spare ourselves some criticism and others the unwelcome task of offering it.

Kenneth S. Roundhill is field director for the World Wide Evangelization Crusade in Japan and staff worker for the Japan Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. He has the B.A. from Otago University in Dunedin, New Zealand, and is a graduate of the New Zealand Bible Institute.

Norman Mailer, describing Apollo 11 landing on the moon in his book A Fire on the Moon, observes, “The notion that man voyaged out to fulfill the desire of God was either the heart of the vision, or an anathema to that true angel in Heaven they would violate by the fires of their ascent.” Religious reflection has never been considered Mailer’s forte, yet these words suggest a perception that has escaped many theologians. Events today tend to support the view that God’s plan for man included space exploration.

President Nixon sounded a somewhat similar note when he tried to place the Apollo 11 landing in historical context by stating in his welcome to the returning astronauts that the week of July 20, 1969, was “the greatest … since the beginning of the world, the Creation.” If the manned lunar landing does indeed support opinions like these, then by now the significance of that event should have been felt throughout our society. The two years since then should have given us the chance to observe any change in our lives that might be traceable to the moon landing. I’d like to discuss just one aspect of this—the spiritual changes that I think have their origin in the space program or have evolved from the lunar landing and exploration by man.

At the time a manned landing on the moon was first proposed, some thinking persons, including a few theologians, were firmly opposed to the idea. There was a feeling that for man to go to the moon would be to challenge God, to attempt to usurp his authority. These persons believed that earth was the realm of man, that space was God’s domain, and that these boundaries were fixed for all time. They cited Genesis 11:1–9, the account of the Tower of Babel experience. They also quoted Obadiah, “Though thou shalt exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD” (Obad. 1:4).

I would like to suggest that this “God will not permit it” attitude was much too narrow—that God not only permitted man to go to the moon and explore it but gave the venture his blessing. This was indeed, to quote Mailer again, the “heart of the vision.” I propose that God permitted man to land on the moon in order to demonstrate not only the incorrectness of the view that he would not approve of it but also another important truth for mankind: That man is a divinely created being in a universe ordered by God.

There is still much about man that is immature. For example, we often ascribe to God qualities that are more man-like than God-like. Thus we are able to imagine him challenged by the almost infinitesimal move into space that a lunar landing represents in God’s vast universe.

I first became impressed with a spiritual element in the space program with the flight of Apollo 8. The thrill of hearing the first ten verses of Genesis one read by astronauts Borman, Lovell, and Anders on Christmas Eve, 1968, from lunar orbit was beyond description. NASA estimated later that over two-thirds of the world’s population or some two billion people heard the Bible read, not in their own language in every case, but read nonetheless. NASA couldn’t have programmed this—God had to do it! The Washington Post expressed some understanding of this in an editorial on December 26, 1968:

At some point in the history of the world, someone may have read the first ten verses of the Book of Genesis under conditions that gave them greater meaning than they had on Christmas Eve. But it seems unlikely. Three men, the first to break free of the earth’s grasp and venture into the ocean of space, chose the biblical story of the Creation as their Christmas message to their fellow men. Their choice no doubt had something to do with the insignificance they must have felt, despite their own magnificent achievement, in their unique personal confrontation with the universe. And it also reflected a feeling that the more we learn about the universe—and Astronauts Borman, Lovell, and Anders are adding substantially to that knowledge—the more awesome it becomes.

A New York Times editorial writer, too, detected a spiritual note:

There was more than narrow religious significance in the emotional high point of their fantastic odyssey, their reading of the Biblical story of creation while this world watched live pictures of the moon televised by the astronauts from within a few dozen miles of the lunar surface. One of the most powerful forces impelling men to try to break away from this, humanity’s birth planet, is precisely burning curiosity to unravel the mysteries of creation. How were this world and the solar system to which it belongs formed? How did life originate? Are there other living beings in the vast universe of which the sun men know and its planets are but an infinitesimal portion [December 26, 1968]?

Perhaps the Washington Star in a December 29 editorial came closest to expressing the true significance:

The essential thing that man has gained as a result of Apollo 8 is a new vision of himself. There is no revelation, it is true, in the knowledge that the earth is a small planet, a speck of dust in the vastness of space. That is an intellectual concept that man has accepted, or tried to accept, since Galileo glimpsed infinity more than 300 years ago. But never before has the earth seemed so fragile or so precious as it looked from the edge of that boundless night.

Already there is evidence that men of differing views have reacted to what Pope Paul has called this millennial event with a realization that human life and the earth itself are vulnerable to man’s widely accelerated technical progress, and that they are, taken together, eminently worthy of preservation.

We saw this spiritual emphasis again with the flight of Apollo 11 and the first landing on the moon. Astronaut Aldrin, in attempting to express his attitude at that time, chose to celebrate the sacrament of communion on the surface of the moon. He said later: “The symbolism of the flight, of what we were looking for, seemed to transcend modern times. I searched for some words or some symbol to be representative of man’s expanding search.”

These spiritual threads in the space program are indicative of the way God has been speaking to us, reminding us that we were serving his purposes in our journey to the moon.

There are other important considerations. The space program has been heavily oriented toward research and experimentation in the life sciences, such as medicine. A fundamental objective of space research, articulated at the beginning of the space program, was to search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Scientists and laymen alike are eager to know whether any kind of life form exists or has existed on another body in the universe. This is why extreme care has been taken to avoid contamination of the moon and the possible contamination of earth from life forms that might exist on the moon. This search, of course, has been governed by what we know about life and the forms it may take. We cannot search for life forms vastly foreign to our research equipment and current knowledge.

This motivation led very early to heavy emphasis on planetary probes to Mars. The first of these to return photographs to earth was Mariner IV. I remember well my surprise when I first saw these photographs on TV in July, 1965. The similarity of the cratered surface of Mars to that of the moon was striking. Further supporting clues were provided by the Mariner VI and VII spacecraft. Better photographs covering a larger area confirmed the Mariner IV findings: Mars is much like the moon!

Adding to these data has been research on rock samples from the moon. No evidence of any form of life, past or present, can be found in them. The moon appears to be devoid of life. So does Mars, based on what we can infer about its similarity to the moon. I believe God is speaking to man in this situation. He is demonstrating the truth of the biblical account of creation and confirming the uniqueness of man and our divine origin. Man is not a cosmological accident but a part of a great divine plan. I feel I can say with some 99 per cent probability that we have no predecessors or counterparts in space. Man must come to realize that he is essentially alone in the universe.

The search for life and the test of the evolution theory, and a growing realization of who we are as humans having a divine origin, are converging ideas that stimulate the search for spiritual meaning.

Looking back over the first decade of the space program and the recent years of our lunar exploration program, we can see also several important social and cultural developments. Is there any connection? Let’s take a look.

We have seen greatly heightened concern for our environment. Pollution is a very present danger, not just an extremist’s idea. Depletion of the earth’s natural resources is a potential danger to our future economy and way of life. Yet it seems that the God of the Universe has decreed that we make it on earth—or not at all!

We have also seen the growth both of our involvement in Southeast Asia and of the people’s rejection of this approach to solving international differences. To me, it is not surprising that war has become so unpopular today. How can the technical achievements of space exploration be reconciled with the taking of human life? This grating contrast between our lofty aspirations in space and our wretched solutions to certain problems on earth is too vivid to be lost on thinking persons today.

Another concern has to do with problems of racial discrimination and the inequities of opportunity for education, employment, and housing. This has led to greatly accelerated efforts to formulate programs, laws, and policies to eliminate discrimination. Attitudes on the part of both blacks and whites, though slower to change, have also become more tolerant and human. This recognition of our humanity, the special qualities all men share, shows a recognition of our divine origin and thus our uniqueness. Regardless of our racial and cultural differences, we all reflect a common, “created” origin. We are beginning to appreciate one another more as we sense that this spiritual quality, this divine nature, is indeed a common thread that binds us together.

William H. Creevey, writing in Presbyterian Life(December 1, 1969), showed appreciation of this fact when he said:

The strange thing about our recent voyage to the moon is that whereas we thought we were exploring outer space and searching out more pastures across a fence of ether beyond our atmosphere, it all turned out as if it were a discovery of the earth. That is the real trophy of the moon trip—a new view of the turning earth with its spiralling veils of weather and a new sense of the human family. The lasting legacy of Apollo 11 is a new sense of all mankind.

These changes in our social and cultural spheres have been accompanied by deeper change in our spiritual mores and religious beliefs over the past decade. In commenting on these changes Time magazine said,

The most significant trend of the ’70s may well be a religious revival. This does not necessarily mean that there will be a massive return to existing institutional churches, although they will continue to modernize in form and structure (by the end of the decade, it is muttered in Rome, even the Pope may appear publicly in coat and tie rather than ecclesiastical garb). In reaction against the trend toward secularization, there may well be a sweeping revival of fundamentalism, particularly in its fervent, Pentecostal variety. The decade will also see the proliferation of small, home-centered worship groups with their own rituals, perhaps even their own theologies. Many people will reject traditional Western religions, finding inspiration and solace in the mystery cults of the East or in eclectic spiritual systems of their own devising [December 19, 1969].

This trend was developing long before Time commented on it. The beginnings of home Bible-study and prayer groups, the modern-day equivalent of the first-century cell group, date to the early sixties. In addition, the wild proliferation of T-groups, sensitivity groups, and other forms of interpersonal experiments on the secular scene all testify to the fact that people are searching for a more meaningful interpersonal experience than they have yet encountered, and for a spiritual reality that transcends the tedium of their daily lives. Most thinking persons sense that there is more to life than what they have experienced. Our findings in space underscore the fact of a “Someone” who guides our universe—and our lives.

This may be the reason why drugs, once the realm in which our young people saw great hope, have lost much of their appeal. Many young Americans are turning instead to Christ as the only one who can meet their needs. This dawning realization on the part of both old and young can to some degree be seen as an indirect benefit of the space program, and it could well eclipse in significance all other benefits.

Writing about these matters during the early days of the space program, I observed that man is moving out into space as part of a spiritual deficiency, a spiritual immaturity. He seeks authentication of his divine nature. Verification of this heritage could be the most significant benefit of the space program. I now believe this more than ever, and believe that this is why God has blessed our space program. Through it, he is directing man’s attention to himself and reminding man of his relation to the Father, his Creator. Man’s recognition of who he is and what he can become as a child of God could lead this nation and the world to a new plateau of spirituality in this day.

In expressing these opinions I run the risk of being labeled an apologist for the space agency. Worse, the logician is likely to charge me with the common fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: the mere fact that our space program (particularly the first lunar landing) preceded this new spiritual awakening and the so-called Jesus movement cannot be taken to show a direct relation. On the other hand, this conclusion cannot be lightly dismissed, nor can it be assuredly claimed that these two events are merely accidents of time and place. I venture to say that within three to five years, the relation will become more sharply focused.

Some years ago I suggested that man may have to go to the moon to prove he has no purpose in space. Today I would say that the manned landing and exploration of the moon has helped man define more sharply his purpose on earth. It has emphasized our great strengths, such as technological capability and national will. It also has helped us identify areas of weakness in our society, our relation to our environment, the quality of our life. But even more importantly, it has identified the weakness of our spiritual beliefs and reinforced our need for a deeper spiritual life. Many people have felt a new determination to find God. That this is happening is an encouraging omen that could point to a world-wide renewal of Christian faith.

Rodney W. Johnson is technical assistant for shuttle payloads in the Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, D.C. He has the M.S. from the University of Minnesota and the Ph.D. from Purdue.

Exposed To Light

Once you’re exposed to light

the half-truths blur. Oh,

we can stare in space or shut

our eyes (martyrs are few),

genuflect to the Church

on science, Hitler on race,

tradition on war, touch

our caps, poor self-abasing

toadies. At dawn each heart

will stir in its sleep to press

the memory of light.

“And yet it moves,” we whisper.

FRANCIS MAGUIRE

As we enter the New Year I want to say thank you to all our readers for their faithfulness, their prayers, and their support. God bless you!

One standout on the ’72 horizon is Mr. Nixon’s planned series of diplomatic forays around the world. In conception they are breathtaking, but cold realism suggests that the immediate results will not shake the world.

On the close-in domestic scene, my wife and I recently made another foray into that lovely land where grandchildren grow. The prize was Jeremy Scott Buffam, whose mother is our second daughter, Joanne. We’re delighted to begin the new year with a doubled supply of grandchildren (our other daughter has a year-old girl)!

Another very gratifying arrival of late was that of Harold O. J. Brown, now on our editorial staff. We warmly welcome him and his wife and daughter to our midst. Brown has the Ph.D. from Harvard (plus the S.T.B. and Th.M. from Harvard Divinity School) and—speaking of doubling—this doubles our Ivy League representation: Don Tinder has his doctorate from Yale. Harold Brown is the author of several books and for four years was minister to students at Park Street Church in Boston. He has come to us after five years of service in Europe with the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students.