Is it still important for every Christian to set aside regular hours for private Bible reading, meditation, and prayer?
The rise of this practice among laymen came after the advent of the printing press and the Reformation. Each believer could at last read God’s Word for himself. What a thrilling experience this must have been initially. Now some Christians seem ready to discard the whole idea. Why?
At first glance, the decline of private devotions appears to be a product of our harried age. Although machines increasingly do our work, we have fewer spare moments than ever. Demands for action crowd in, and we tend to yield at the point of forsaking cultivation of the inner spiritual life. Real meditation becomes rare, and fasting is forgotten. Many whose profession it is to proclaim God’s Word readily concede that they spend precious little time feeding their own souls.
Mere lack of time, however, may not be major cause for rejection of the devotional tradition. There is increasing skepticism over its value. Indeed, to some the word “devotional” connotes superficiality. They regard it as antithetical to intelligent consideration of Scripture.
Although this complaint may be used as a rationalization to cover up sheer neglect, there is a measure of truth in it. Devotional material by the carload descends upon the Christian public each year and most of it suffers from shallowness. Much of such literature takes a lazy approach to important questions, appealing to the emotions rather than the intellect. As a result, many serious-minded Christians have been “turned off.”
But before devotions per se are dismissed as a waste of time, we should examine their role in the lives of great Christians. In our activist age, influential leaders are invariably pictured as people always on the go. We are not often privileged to peek into their private lives. If we were, we might be amazed to see how much time they devote to periods of solitude from which they draw physical, mental, and spiritual strength.
Dag Hammarskjöld was one of the great activists of our time, and many were surprised to learn when his Markings was published posthumously that the U. N. Secretary General was a very contemplative man who obviously spent much time alone in thought. He was thoroughly familiar with Scripture.
But how could a man in his position ever find time to read the Bible? Answer: He took the time. Moreover, he chided those who had no time to hear God through his Word. “How can you expect to keep your powers of hearing when you never want to listen?” he asked.
We can only speculate upon the effects of neglecting personal devotions. But it is perhaps one reason why so many of us have blind spots in the moral, theological, and ecclesiastical spectrum. It may also account for the personality quirks, contentiousness, and coldness on the part of some whose orthodoxy no one can dispute. It could be that lack of regular two-way communication with God is preventing many a promising Christian thinker from having more of an impact upon contemporary culture.
The record shows that Christians with outstanding minds guard their time with God. The late Kenneth Scott Latourette of Yale, leading church historian of our century, started a “morning watch” while he was in college. “It meant fifteen minutes to an hour of private Bible reading and prayer,” he said. At first it didn’t seem to mean much, but when Latourette wrote his autobiography in his eighties he recalled that “I have maintained the custom over the more than sixty years which have followed, and during much of the time God has become increasingly real as a faithful companion and guide.”
Some feel that only detached, objective, critical study of the Bible is desirable. But J. Gresham Machen, who may someday be considered the most profound apologist of the evangelical cause in the twentieth century, once said that one needs a devout spirit if he is to get anything out of Scripture. He declared there is “no adequate motive to most people to study the Bible as literature only. If we are to obtain the literary knowledge even, we must study devoutly.”
We are more familiar with the devotional lives of men of more remote history, though we seem reluctant to benefit from their practices. A biographer of the great Puritan intellect Jonathan Edwards says that he rose at four in the morning and spent thirteen hours a day studying, always with pen in hand making notes. John Wesley was said to have resolved in his childhood “to dedicate an hour each morning and evening … to prayer,” and to have kept this vow throughout his life. Bunyan seems to have had similar inclinations, for he wrote that “he who runs from God in the morning will scarcely find Him the rest of the day.” Luther said that “to be a Christian without prayer is no more possible than to be alive without breathing.”
Christ himself spent time in meditation and prayer. How much more do we finite human beings need to recharge our spiritual batteries. Time spent alone with God enables him to become incarnate through us. There are valid public means of grace, but there are also private ones that can never be supplanted. How often we need restoration and cleansing! How often we fail because we are not quite on the right wave length. The more importunate and sacrificial our devotions (even to the point of fasting), the more effective our actions will tend to become. The release of spiritual power is contingent upon our meeting divine requirements, and if we do not commune with God we can hardly expect to know what those requirements are.
Sometimes we are tempted to try to outrun God. Our inclination is to blurt out that “time’s a-wastin’ ” and to get on with the task. But Jesus stressed adequate spiritual preparation; he told his disciples to tarry until they were endued with power from on high. Upon receiving the power they did go out, and never have men accomplished more in so short a time than they did then.
One who carries on a regular devotional life need not be superficial. In fact, true piety comes when we practice our faith at the deepest level of which we are capable. Publishers of devotional material need to recognize the responsibility of challenging the mind, and Christian consumers should voice their demands. But the Bible itself should be the primary devotional source. No one should expect to get much out of his devotions if he chooses to read only a commentary. Intensive examination of Scripture is a must. Continuity and regularity are very helpful, and some form of question-and-answer technique and note-taking will also prove profitable.
To retire to the “closet” for private devotions is not essential. We don’t even have to sit down. We should be free from distractions, however, and will probably need to develop new ways to achieve this in our modern situation. Although it’s pretty hard to read while jogging, we might be able to meditate then.
Christians whose lives need to be revitalized might well find that summer is a good time to start. It’s the season in which there is at least a bit more leisure, and the inspiration of the outdoors is a further incentive. So is vacation time. But whenever the time, the sooner the better. God needs men and women to stand in the gap in these crucial days, and he is more likely to use effectively those who live close to him.
Capital Consistency
Consistent obedience to God’s laws is a rare jewel; what glitters on most of us is merely a paste facsimile. Many churchmen, for example, declare thou surely shalt not execute murderers or kill the Viet Cong, while they campaign for loose abortion laws that allow extinction of human life on more tenuous grounds. At least that seems to be the result of Maryland’s liberalized law; in six months 45 abortions were denied and 743 were performed, nearly 80 per cent of them because of a supposed threat to the mother’s mental health.
No doubt most state abortion laws need revision. But when new laws are passed, physicians and clergymen must use them carefully. Surely we should resist the taking of innocent lives of unborn infants merely on demand or for convenience. There must be substantial medical and other grounds that are biblically licit. Otherwise abortion becomes murder even though the victim can neither walk nor talk.
R. G. Letourneau
R. G. LeTourneau, whose earthmoving equipment and other inventions have changed the landscape of the world, is dead. He was an energetic self-starter who packed a real wallop. For years he traveled to the great cities and to the boondocks to tell about what Jesus Christ had done for him. He established a school of technology, organized a foundation to which he contributed large sums of money, and involved himself deeply in missionary endeavors overseas. In an age when evangelicals have often been accused of lacking social concern, LeTourneau provided evidence to the contrary in his efforts in Africa and Latin America that led to the clearing of land for agriculture and the improvement of crops and livestock. The world will miss him.
Obscenity Under A Methodist Imprint?
The ax finally fell on motive last month. Dr. Myron F. Wicke, publisher of the avant-garde Methodist monthly, said printing of the May issue had been “postponed” because it contained language “which appears to be clearly obscene” (see News, page 30).
It was a courageous step for Dr. Wicke, and he is being subjected to abuse for taking it. But motive has been doing its own thing for years, and it was obviously past time to draw the line. Many readers felt that the March–April issue also had been undeserving of the imprint of the United Methodist Church. It was sprinkled with suggestive illustrations and four-letter words (with an introductory glossary for the naïve). The articles in it espoused morally permissive ideology. Since the publication of motive has been made possible by the offerings of Christians who want their money used to promote righteousness, such content wanders perilously close to a misappropriation of funds.
For those of us personally acquainted with B. J. Stiles, motive’s retiring editor, it is hard to reconcile the vulgarity with his Christian personality. Mr. Stiles is the epitome of the Southern gentleman, friendly, courteous, clean-cut, soft-spoken, and humble. He is a talented young man with a sincere spirit. He of all people doesn’t need to be crude to be heard.
Why, with half a million words to choose from in the dictionary, does motive magazine turn to obscene terminology? The problem may well be symbolized by its name: “motive” with a small m. One wonders whether motive has really had a motive. A help-wanted ad in the March–April issue said that the magazine needed two new associate editors and that “both positions require a person who is politically radical, knowledgeable, and an excellent writer—and some knowledge of hustling funds wouldn’t hurt, either.” Commitments of a non-political variety apparently are not needed—or not wanted.
There may be considerable sentiment to punish motive severely. Surely the irresponsibility of the editors needs to be reckoned with. But Methodist officialdom should resist any temptation to make motive a scapegoat for the serious problems that have overtaken the church. Methodist leaders owe their constituency a deeper explanation. Is not this obscenity in the name of the church due to an overt frustration over failure to convert the mind of man? Is it not the natural fruition of the new theology, the new evangelism, and the new morality that have penetrated Christianity? Has not motive been a victim of the relativistic metaphysics of our time? Can we really expect anything else while seminaries launch students into the sea of subjectivism with neither sail nor compass nor rudder?
What motive needs is a capital M. Only an objective, truly Christian rationale can provide it.
Decision Time On Viet Nam
The organization Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam recently distributed a paper written by Richard J. Barnet. In it he declares that the United States is faced with two options: either the National Liberation Front must be included in a coalition government (with “a communist-dominated South Vietnam a distinct possibility”), or the United States can make the NLF accept less by a decisive military victory. He favors a coalition government and does not run away from the possibility that South Vietnam would be in Communist hands because, he says, they constitute the majority of the people anyway.
It is clear that if the United States buys the notion of a coalition government, then its own war aims will have been nullified. This cannot be disguised as anything other than defeat. Barnet says that talks with the North Vietnamese and the NLF people have convinced him that they understand the “loss of face” problem and that if the United States capitulates they “would go to great lengths to make extrication as easy as possible for the United States.”
If this is true, President Nixon faces some tough choices. And he needs our prayers.
The New Chief Justice
Recently many Americans have been increasingly alarmed and frustrated because persons who are clearly guilty of serious crimes are being released on the basis of trivial technicalities. And when a conviction does come, it is often after an absurdly long delay.
It is good to know that President Nixon’s choice of a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Earl Burger, shares these same concerns. Repeatedly he has expressed opposition to expanding the rights of accused criminals.
Burger’s reputation as a “law and order” man is in the finest juridical sense of the term. His zeal to protect the rights of the accused is tempered by common sense and by a persuasion that the public too must be protected. His determination that the guilty shall be punished is balanced by a desire that prisons should be corrective, not simply penal.
Burger’s commitment to law and order, as well as his consistent example of personal integrity, may help to bring about a much needed restoration of confidence in and respect for the highest court in our land.
Prostitutes For Prisoners?
They’ve got to be kidding. Recently a bill was introduced in the Wisconsin State Assembly to allow prison inmates to engage in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. And the privileges would not be restricted to married couples!
One of the most serious problems confronting prison officials is the rather high incidence of homosexuality and other sexual perversions among those who find themselves in the unnatural situation of being separated from members of the opposite sex. The resulting passions and frustrations have repeatedly led to serious disciplinary problems.
But the proposed legislation is certainly not the solution. This is another example of the elevation of sex far above its rightful place in the development of personality. Advocates of the plan wrongly assume that an individual cannot be a complete personality apart from sexual relations and that allowing this privilege will eliminate many prison discipline problems.
To what extent even a married inmate should be provided all the comforts of home is open to question; the criminal has forfeited rights and privileges that would normally be his. But to provide for sexual relations between unmarried persons in clear violation of God’s law and in violation of some civil laws is outrageous. And for a state legislature to provide for prison inmates what is rightly forbidden the average citizen is absurd. The would-be criminal will surely be encouraged to know that every effort is being made to promote his happiness and pleasure while a resident in prison.
Church And The Single Person
Now is the time for all single people to come to the aid of one another. This month, incoming wedding invitations and outgoing wedding gifts will tear names from black books, add pressed bouquets to scrapbooks, and elicit concern over why a nice girl/man like you isn’t married.
The reasons are as varied as the nice people without rings on their fingers. Some of these people genuinely enjoy the financial and social independence of singlehood; others want some fun before they settle down in suburbia. Unhappy romances, death, divorce, and personal and family problems leave still others living alone whether they like it or not.
Actually, there’s a lot to like about the single person’s life. His paycheck has to feed and clothe only one person. His newspaper is always intact. He doesn’t have to wait in line for the shower. He can impulsively spend a weekend at the beach. He doesn’t have to tolerate childish interruptions when he’s discussing politics or art—assuming, of course, that he has someone to talk to. The price tag on independence is companionship, the sense of personal worth that comes from “belonging” to another person, security, someone to carry one end of life’s responsibilities.
Single Christians who look for the sustenance of friendship in their churches frequently find instead a stone of frustration. Some “single young adults” groups pile party upon party, but conversation—if it ever gets started—rarely goes anywhere. Other groups slip into Sunday-evening sermonettes that have scant significance for Monday morning—or Saturday night. No one mentions what is uppermost in nearly every mind: marriage and how to achieve it. Everyone appears to take chastity for granted: unmarried people don’t admit their virtue can be tempted, and married leaders fear a what-to-do-when-it-is discussion might create rather than solve problems. But single people’s hang-ups already span a broad spectrum that, unshared, only broadens.
The single Christian needs the church community to love him, not because he is single (and therefore free to teach the junior-high Sunday-school class), but because he is a person. He needs other single people to complain to about domineering parents and overbearing bosses, to spend dateless Saturday evenings with, to confide in about life and love and Christian faith. He needs encouragement from intelligent, fun-loving leaders who have made realistically genuine Christian commitments, people who are young (at heart) enough to bridge generation gaps, mature enough to let him make his own mistakes, honest enough to speak the truth in love. In that aura of security, single people can learn to love others because they are people, not because they are single. And a group founded on respect for one another and united in Christian love may even begin dividing—into twos.
Drinking And Driving
In 1968 more than 55,000 Americans died as a result of automobile accidents. Almost four and one-half million were injured. And these grim statistics can only suggest what the total cost of these accidents was—in dollars and cents, in mental anguish and physical suffering, and in lifelong disabilities.
Young people who are greatly concerned over the tragedy of Viet Nam and the lengthening list of casualties there need to be reminded that traffic safety is a cause in which they could render much useful service to humanity. And it is a particularly appropriate cause for them to adopt, because one-third of the drivers involved in fatal accidents were under twenty-five, though only one-fifth of the nation’s drivers are below that age.
What really hurts is the staggering statistic that more than half of all the accidents and deaths involved drivers who had been drinking. If the Church wants to launch a campaign, it might well turn its attention to the ugly business of mixing alcohol and gasoline which often produces a horrible holocaust.
We do not suggest a return to prohibition, if for no other reason than that it seems impossible to rally enough Americans to support it. But we do say, and encourage every other American to say, that we cannot tolerate the idea that men can drink and drive. Let the rule of the highway be: “If you drink, don’t drive.
Temptation
Temptation is the common lot of all believers. No one reaches a point where he is immune from it and no one is delivered from the possibility of succumbing to it.
Basically man wants to be something, to do something, to have something. These desires are not in themselves sinful. They become sinful only when they cut across the will of God. It was always God’s intention that man enjoy to the fullest all he has given to him in creation. The psalmist declares: “No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly” (Ps. 84:11).
Temptation comes, but its source is not God. “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (Jas. 1:13, 14). Ultimately temptation comes from Satan, who makes it his business to bring about the ruin of God’s children. He incites man to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. David and Samson are examples of men who fell prey to Satan.
In his providence God permits his children to be tempted. The trials a believer undergoes have therapeutic value. In them he can learn patience; in them God can correct misunderstanding and remove the dross; in them God can show his delivering mercies. Therefore they are to be received in humility and accepted with grace.
In the midst of temptation the Christian is promised that God “will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). Indeed, the Lord knows how “to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Pet. 2:9).
Scripture tells us that each believer is responsible for himself and suggests what he can do when faced with temptation. He is to resist by faith; indeed he is to resist “unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). He is to be watchful, vigilant, alert. He is to use all the resources of prayer to endure the assaults. And is not to become a source of temptation to others by what he says or does.
Of all Scriptural injunctions, none is more demanding or more lofty in spirit than the one that says, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). All of us need to do a lot of forgiving and restoring of others even as we need to be forgiven and restored ourselves.
