Some weeks ago we said that orthodoxy can be deadly (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, April 23 issue), for an unlovely thing appears when it becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

But a theological liberalism which rejects the complete reliability and authority of the holy Scriptures is also a deadly thing.

Nothing has robbed the Church of her witness so much as a low view of inspiration. Nothing has detracted so much from current preaching as this shift from an authority higher than man. Nothing has caused more needy souls to leave their pews on Sunday with a sense of emptiness and frustration as much as the substitution of man’s opinions for divine affirmations.

Theological liberalism is deadly because:

The basis of authority shifts from divine revelation to human reason. Even where the Bible is said to “contain” the word of God, the discovery of what is asserted to be authentic depends on scholarship, deduction and human receptiveness. One man finds one part “inspired,” while another finds that another portion “speaks.” The concept of total inspiration, irrespective of man’s reaction, is rejected.

The inevitable corollary of this attitude to the Bible is a loss of conviction. A sense of authority, urgency and vital importance is thereby lost. Although the individual concerned may be unaware of it, those who come under such a ministry know that something is lacking.

With such liberalism inevitably comes a shift in emphasis: symptoms are magnified while the underlying disease is ignored or minimized. The fact that Christ came to save sinners is lost in the emphasis that he came to make this world a better place in which to live. The biblically based doctrines of sin, judgment, the new birth, eternal punishment, and so forth, are ignored or qualified, while corporate social righteousness is stressed.

Such liberalism inevitably results in the loss of spiritual power. Just as Samson lost his physical prowess after having his head shorn, so too the theological liberal experiences a loss of spiritual power when he rejects divinely revealed truth and substitutes a Christ and a gospel foreign to the Scriptures.

We say that the theological liberalism so described is deadly because it is based on rejection of Christian truth revealed in the Scriptures and the substitution of ideas often completely at variance with such truth. To reject the historical accuracy and the spiritual implications of the Bible is to be “liberal” with that which we do not have the right to liberalize. It is one thing to interpret Scripture so that historical background, linguistic implications and significance of local customs and usages are clarified. But an “interpretation” which is actually a denial of clearly stated truths is no longer interpretation but presumption.

If the Bible merely contains the word of God, mixed with inaccuracies, deliberate frauds, statements stemming from ignorance, pre-dated history palmed off as prophetic truth, and thought-forms which actually mean the opposite of what they are intended to convey, then who will sort the true from the false? We are told that this must be left to the scholars. But it is disconcerting to find that the “assured findings” of scholars of yesterday have been replaced by other equally “assured” conclusions of a new generation.

Not for one moment should Christians tolerate anti-intellectualism. But a distinction must be made between a reverent scholarship, and that which sits in judgment on Scripture, and magnifies rather than reconciles difficulties. That increasing numbers of scholars are shifting back to far more conservative conclusions is significant and encouraging.

Theological liberalism is deadly when it assumes an attitude to the Scriptures at variance with that of our Lord and his disciples. A study of the record shows that to them the Old Testament was authentic and authoritative. To say, as some do, that our Lord’s own understanding was limited, is to assume a position utterly untenable to those who accept him as revealed in the Scriptures.

Of course there are difficulties in the Bible. A supernatural revelation transmitted through human instruments of varying personalities, nationalities and backgrounds inevitably poses problems.

The amazing thing is the unity and continuity of the revelation, and a rejection of its truthfulness poses even greater difficulties for the theological liberal. His greatest dilemma is to be found in his own contradictions and the strange phenomena of an emerging philosophy which is at complete variance to that presented in Holy Writ.

But the place where theological liberalism is most deadly is in the area of life and death itself. Face to face with man’s need of salvation and the fact that without Christ he is in spiritual darkness, dead and lost, what can one offer if the necessity of the new birth is debatable? What is there to offer if Christ did not die for his sins? What hope can be held out if the reality of sin and the judgment of God on unrepentant sinners are questioned?

We deplore the philosophy of Christian Science which denies the reality of pain and suffering; but is that more serious than a denial of the clear affirmations of the Scriptures with reference to sin, righteousness and judgment to come?

For instance, when liberal preaching stresses the fact that “God accepts man,” without at the same time making clear that this acceptance is based solely on the person and work of Christ, it is a deadly thing for it offers a false hope.

Liberalism is a good word but in recent years it has earned connotations which have little in common with the original meaning. Where it means the exercise of Christian love and tolerance in matters where men of equal piety may differ, it is good. Where it becomes a rallying point for ecclesiastical pressures or an intolerance of conservative Christians, it becomes a misnomer. Just as fundamentalism which is harsh, critical and unloving is a tragedy, so also is a liberalism which denies the liberty it espouses for itself.

It has been said that the liberalism of today is the conservatism of tomorrow. Where the basic elements of the Christian faith have been rejected and faith in eternal verities has been superseded by adherence to the changing currents of human speculation, liberalism is now and always has been deadly.

These are days when, in a shaken and uncertain world, men need something they know will never change. Theological liberalism offers no such message. This is a plea to those who stand on the ramparts to give bread instead of a stone; fish instead of a serpent.

L. NELSON BELL

CARTOON EXPLANATION:

There are two things I have always wanted. One is to draw a cartoon. The other is to have someone explain to me the cartoons other people draw.

You see my cartoon.

Now for the explanation.

The two clergymen in the picture are in an art gallery. One is reading from a guidebook. The masterpiece they are inspecting has felt the impact of a recent article in the Post by a Harvard theologian. The professor says that the dimension of depth is religious. He seems to feel that modern art has it all over Billy Graham in this dimension. It asks a sincere and religious question “when the painter breaks the visible surface into pieces.”

This picture shows how sincere a painter can get.

It also symbolizes what I think the professor has done to the Christian gospel in seeking his lost dimension of depth.

EUTYCHUS

IN SEARCH OF A DIMENSION

In the issue of June 14, 1958, the Saturday Evening Post contained an article on religion by Professor Paul Tillich of Harvard University.… It appears to be the purpose of Professor Tillich in this article to interpret the present popular revival of religious interest as a “desperate and mostly futile attempt to regain what has been lost,” which lost thing he calls the “dimension of depth” in religion. Professor Tillich defines the dimension of depth as being “the religious dimension in man’s nature.” To him religion in its innermost nature “is the state of being concerned about one’s own being and being universally.” … To him also, “being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers even if the answers hurt.”

Professor Tillich rejects the idea that any particular religion, including Christianity, can furnish the answer or be the key to the search for the answer. To him the only key is that concern to know which causes us passionately to seek to learn the meaning of our existence.… Tillich says “there is always an answer but the answer may not be available to us.” He says that the real answer “is given by the awareness that we have lost the decisive dimension of life, the dimension of depth, and there is no easy way of getting it back. Such awareness is in itself a state of being grasped by that which is symbolized in the term, dimension of depth. He who realizes that he is separated from the ultimate source of meaning shows by this realization that he is not only separated but also reunited. And this is just our situation. What we need above all—and partly have—is the radical realization of our predicament, without trying to cover it up by secular or religious ideologies. The revival of religious interest would be a creative power in our culture if it would develop into a movement of search for the lost dimension of depth.” …

To try to understand Professor Tillich’s paragraph it may be useful to substitute X for the expression, dimension of depth, or for whatever is referred to by that expression, and omit unnecessary portions. So simplified his statement might appear to be: The real answer to the question of how to regain X is given by the awareness that we have lost X and there is no easy way of getting it back. Such awareness is in itself a state of being grasped by X. He who realizes that he is separated from X shows by this realization that he is not only separated from X but reunited to it. What we need above all, and partly have, is to realize that we have lost X. The revival of religious interest would be a creative power in our culture if it would develop into a movement of search for X.

Then finally he terminates his article with a remark which similarly clarified would read: In spite of the loss of X, its power is present, and most present in those who are aware of the loss and are striving to regain it with ultimate seriousness.

Presumably in all of this Professor Tillich is trying to say, as in the early part of his article, that man has lost the answer to the question: What is the meaning of life? And he has also lost the courage to ask this question; but those who, like himself, are truly aware of this loss (as distinct from persons who accept Christianity or other faiths) are the most competent and likely to regain both the courage and the answer. In the simplest possible terms it appears that Professor Tillich is pointing to himself and others who concur with his views on religion as being the only hope of ever learning the answer to the question: What is the meaning of life? Where do we come from, and where do we go?

… Although Professor Tillich avows that there is an answer to this basic question, he obviously has no real idea what it is—he is only groping for it. Nevertheless at the beginning of his article he states that man has lost the answer to the question. If it is lost there is no existing record or knowledge of it and therefore how can he know that it ever was known so that it could later be lost?…

If in all of his groping for the meaning of life throughout recorded history and undoubtedly before that, man has not progressed beyond the groping phase, why should anyone expect that the search which Professor Tillich urges so strongly will make any appreciable progress? Apart from a truly miraculous revelation our generation and those which follow will still he unhappily groping—provided man’s capacity and urge to self-destruction do not prevent those future generations from being born.…

Is it better to remain deliberately in the negative, confused and futilely hopeful state of Professor Tillich? Or, is it not common sense to investigate and try to learn from personal examination and experience the biblical answers to his question and to enjoy forever the glorious gifts of God to those who seek and trust him?

Lt. Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.)

Chicago, Ill.

FUTURE’S CHALLENGE

“The Challenge of the Future” by J. Edgar Hoover (May 26 issue) should be read by every American.

First Christian Church

Cimarron, Kan.

One quote you included … by Hoover … seemed to favor investigation of various organizations as to their communist affiliation. If your inclusion of the quote means you endorse anything like what we have lived through—may God forbid!

First Methodist Church

Loomis, Calif.

NATION’S FUTURE

An expression of appreciation … for the splendid quality of CHRISTIANITY TODAY as you tackle problems with which the Christian faith is confronted in contemporary life. Your reporting of “Religion in a Free Society” (May 26 issue) was a real service to the nation. The “proposed exchange of thought on Protestant-Catholic anxieties” I must say is courageous, but timely. It is encouraging to hear leaders in American life raising and discussing these questions that have to do with the future of the nation.

First Baptist Church

Minonk, Ill.

Your excellent report … helped the reader to gain knowledge of what the great dialog in America is all about. Your boxed quotation of a remark by Dr. Robert M. Hutchins regarding his terror of the Dial-A-Prayer movement caught my attention. I am surprised that so learned and experienced a gentleman … would dismiss the value of a telephone devotional so abruptly. We have used the automatic answering device for one and one-half years. It is not a substitute for personal prayer, Bible reading, or reading of devotional classics. It is one of many ways to assist the troubled heart in his struggle against sin in his life. The telephone devotional illustrates once again the desire of the Christian prophet to use every available means of communication to make disciples of all nations and to edify members of the body of Christ.

Saint Paul Lutheran Church

Oak Lawn, Ill.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE

Dr. Vos has taken his stand (May 12 issue) at some considerable distance from popular understanding when he argues that the righteous in the intermediate state are deficient, abnormal, and not completely happy. Undoubtedly, this position tends to give greater relevance to Paul’s incessant stress upon the Second Advent as introductory to the glories of the future state. However, to characterize Paul’s attitude toward the possibility of appearing before the Lord Jesus in a disembodied condition as “much less desirable” is to overstate the case. In the passage (2 Cor. 5:1f.), Paul states repeatedly and unqualifiedly that he does not desire to be so found. If Paul is considering the possibility of appearing before the Lord Jesus at the resurrection in an unclothed state (see the introductory passage, 2 Cor. 4:14), one may be led to wonder, after all, if dead souls are not normally unconscious and therefore subject to resurrection. Then the passages quoted (Rev. 6:11; Heb. 11:39, 40; Rom. 8:23–25; 1 Cor. 15:50–54), and many others, might be taken unqualifiedly. In fact, Dr. Vos has quoted 2 Corinthians 5:8 inaccurately …

New England School of Theology

(Advent Christian)

Brookline, Mass.

MORE ON THE GRAVECLOTHES

May I respectfully question the position set forth in the letter entitled “Grave-clothes” (Apr. 28 issue)?… The correspondent rejects the translation of John 20:7 given in both the AV and the RV and offers instead his view that the linens collapsed retaining “the annular, ringlike shape they had been given.”

On the other hand, the best Greek lexicons, namely those by Bauer, A & G, L & S, M & M, and Thayer all support the versions, rendering the Greek verb entulisso as wrap up, fold together, roll up, fold up. The verb seems to occur three times in the N.T., twice of Joseph’s wrapping the body of Jesus in linen clothes, Matt. 27:59; Luke 23:53, and once of Peter’s finding the sweat-band that had been about the head of Jesus folded up in a place by itself, thus suggesting an ordering hand, John 20:7. In their respective commentaries Bauer and Bultmann interpret the last reference as due to an apologetical interest, that is, to show that the body was not suddenly snatched from the grave, but that everything had been left in good order. Hendrickson has a sane note on the verse in his recent commentary.

Columbia Sem.

Decatur, Ga.

In eastern lands there was a space between the main funeral garment round the torso and the napkin round the head. The latter, as Mr. Rufle points out in the account, retained its “annular” shape. It is notable that the word (rolled up) used is identical with the word in Matthew 27:59 telling how Joseph of Arimathea had rolled up the body of Jesus. It was thus apparent to the two apostles that the Lord’s body had disappeared or “evaporated” from the graveclothes without disturbing or removing them.

Belfast, No. Ireland

Former Bishop of Down and Dromore

NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES

Everet R. Johnson (Apr. 14 issue) … talked of New Testament “doctrines.” Perhaps, as a theological journal, you should be more watchful of your authors’ use of words. There are, of course, no “doctrines” in the N. T. (And this is of great reassurance to thoughtful Protestants.) Christ enunciated no doctrines—these were made later by mundane churchmen.

Associate Editor

Christian Herald

New York City

• Concordance study reveals that the New Testament speaks often of the doctrines and teachings of Christ and the apostles, (cf. Matt. 22:33; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:6; Titus 2:10, and 2 John 9). Both Christ and Paul warned against antithetical “human doctrines” (cf. Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:22). Webster’s New International Dictionary distinguishes between “the doctrines of the New Testament” and the “dogmas” of church confessions. Surely Christ’s death for sinners and his resurrection are New Testament doctrines.—ED.

WHENCE REVIVAL?

Many … will disagree with Mr. Pollock’s statement (Apr. 28 issue) that “for a lasting revival, the Church of England must take the lead.” I personally cannot see revival coming from this direction. The dead hand of Anglo-Catholicism lies upon our national church.… I do most heartily agree … that a return visit of Billy Graham is essential. With or without the support of the bishops and free church leaders, he can win the British public for Christ.

St. Clement’s Church, Spotland Vicarage

Rochdale, England

PULLING NO PUNCHES

Thank you for the sane and spiritual article about cooperative evangelism (Apr. 14 issue). Billy Graham doesn’t pull his punches to avoid offending cooperating bodies and I have no doubt the same could be said of many other evangelists. So long as this principle is observed what is there to fear? It is therefore difficult to understand the opposition of your correspondents in the May 26 issue. What alternative have they for making contact with the unsaved masses? “By their fruits ye shall know them” surely applies to the Christian’s work as well as to himself, and God’s blessing so manifestly poured out on Dr. Graham’s crusades is the best answer to critics of the methods employed. Denial that there is such blessing accompanying the crusades seems to me perilously near the sin of ascribing to the devil the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us get our emphases properly balanced—we are to separate from sin, but not from our brethren in Christ. St. Paul went even further—he said he became all things to all men “that I might by all means save some.” Does anyone dare to suggest that he compromised sinfully?

Redhill, Surrey, England

CONCERN FOR SELF-CONCEPT

For fear of causing a phobia with our friend Eutychus, would you kindly suggest in a nonthreatening manner that will not destroy his self-concept, that he review his … somatology (Apr. 28 issue) for a more adequate formulation.…

We shall be watching for the new fashionable Genevan chemise robe (52 short) which should be a knotty disclosure in the pulpit.

Philadelphia, Pa.

HYMNS

I was rather distressed at Eutychus (May 26 issue).… Don’t you agree it is highly questionable to encourage parodies on the great hymns? When I was a child my godly parents strictly outlawed such lightness in our family. To them it was almost like making sport of the Bible.

Dillon Presbyterian Church

Dillon, S. C.

I was delighted with your article “Incognito Chorales”! I have been needling my colleagues on the staff with what you term “psychotherapeutic psalmody.”

Psychotherapy pilot me

Over life’s tempestuous sea;

Unknown fears before me roll,

Hiding blocks and treach’rous goals;

Peace of mind comes from thee:

Psychotherapy pilot me.

As an analysis probes a child,

Thou canst calm an ego wild:

Boisterous ids obey thy will

When thou sayest to them, “Be still.”

Wondrous sovereign of anxiety

Psychotherapy pilot me.

When at last I near the shore,

And the fearful breakers roar

’Twixt me and the peaceful rest

Then while leaning on thy couch

Shall I hear thee say to me?

“From here on, Don’t count on me.”

Chaplain

Veterans (NP) Hospital

Sheridan, Wyo.

The critic snips the sacred page—

His brilliance dims the sun—

He sorts his slips, assigns their age,

And tells who made them one.

Indianapolis, Ind.

SHOCKING DISCOVERY

The review of Will Oursler’s “The Healing Power of Faith” (Apr. 28 issue) reflects … preconceived notions held by the reviewer.… Speaking as a completely orthodox conservative, of the holy, Catholic, Apostolic faith, I take issue with Mr. Girod’s labelling of the author as a ‘theological liberal,’ simply because he asserts that wholeness of the body and mind are God’s will. (The liberals will be shocked to learn Oral Roberts is now in their ranks!)

Trinity Church (Episcopal)

Wheaton, Ill.

ESSAYS ASSAYED

The essays on eschatology … are recommended reading in my systematic theology class. Often things are discussed in class which have been presented in your fine magazine.

Another feature … I look forward to each issue is “Bible Book of the Month” … excellent source of … material.

Richmond, Ind.

THE EVANGEL

The true “evangel” should cut through all doctrinal positions. You are corrupting the “evangel” by narrowing it to a modified fundamentalism tempered with a slightly disguised Calvinism.

Asbury Seminary

Wilmore, Ky.

The need has been for some unifying force to rally the disorganized and often frustrated forces of evangelical Christianity. The strength is there but it needs to be encouraged and articulated, both with evangelistic fervor and dedicated scholarship. I believe that CHRISTIANITY TODAY in a literary sense is doing much to meet this need. Give us more of it. Keep true to the Word—fan the fires of evangelism—interpret the great issues of our day without fear or compromise, and you may be assured that multitudes of Christians around the world will uphold you, pray for you, and believe God for greater things.…

Asbury Seminary

Wilmore, Ky.

This is a note of sincere appreciation for the great help it has been in maintaining my conviction that the basic tenets of the evangelical faith need not be abandoned, nor in any way vitiated, but can be solidly adhered to by the minister of Christ.

I have especially appreciated your occasional articles on the basic trustworthiness of the Scripture—perhaps the doctrine most in danger today.…

Princeton Seminary

Princeton, N. J.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks to you for the role it has played in my recent re-birth in Christ. Its evangelical articles have strengthened me and enlightened me in finding the prize of the regeneration in Christ. After 15 years of searching, while in the ministry, I was marvelously found of God.… Since my blessing in Christ, my wife who is a graduate of an eastern seminary in religious education, has come into the born-again ranks. We now both read and discuss articles in your magazine. It is helping us keep our minds alert and our hearts warm with the Gospel.

John Stewart Methodist Church

Upper Sandusky, O.

The state of final bliss is not one of abstract immortality. In a great deal of non-Christian thought, there is a dualism which conceives of the human body as exercising a degrading influence over the human spirit and the state of bliss is thought to consist in the release of the spirit from the defiling influence associated with bodily existence. From the outset the Bible contradicts this dualism. “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7). Dignity belongs to the human body and man’s spirit was not imprisoned in it. God created man very good and man was body as well as spirit. The separation that takes place in death is not the debt of nature nor the inevitable outcome of man’s physical constitution but the wages of sin. Death is abnormal because it is the curse of sin.

When redemption is brought to bear upon man, it is brought to bear upon him in his totality. His body, no less than his spirit, is drawn within the scope of that redemption. The normal and the natural, disrupted by sin, is restored and the goal to be achieved in the consummation of redemption is not a blissful state of the soul’s immortality, but one in which death is swallowed up in victory; the corruptible puts on incorruption and the mortal immortality. This is why the Scripture lays such emphasis upon the resurrection of the body. Our Lord intimated that the resurrection was guaranteed by the fact that God is the God of his people and that he is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matt. 22:32). And Paul called the resurrection the redemption of the body and accorded it no lower a designation than “the adoption” (Rom. 8:23).

The Identity Of The Body

The resurrection of the body means resuscitation of what is laid in the tomb. Unbelief recoils from such a notion. But resurrection cannot be construed otherwise. The resurrection of believers is patterned after the resurrection of Christ, and it was the body which had been laid in Joseph’s tomb that rose on the third day. It was not a mere body that rose, but Jesus’ body. More properly, Jesus rose as to his body. Scripture takes pains to assure us that Jesus was buried. The angel said to the women on the day of the Resurrection, “Come see the place where he lay” and prefaced this by saying, “He is risen, as he said” (Matt. 28:6). We are not allowed to think that our Lord was disunited from his body when it was laid in the tomb. And the same is true with believers. They go to the grave in respect of their bodies and from their graves they will rise when the last trumpet sounds. There is therefore identity and continuity between the body that returns to dust and the body that will be raised incorruptible.

Resurrected Body

The body will indeed be raised “a Spiritual body”; a momentous change will have been wrought. But “a Spiritual body” is not a body made of spirit. That would be contradiction—a body made of spirit would, of course, be no body at all. “A Spiritual body” is a body that is immortal and incorruptible, not characterized by the mortality and infirmity of our present bodies, a body transformed by the resurrection and adapted to the world of the resurrection inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ as the firstfruits from the dead.

This is what Paul means when he says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50). He is not denying the physical composition of the resurrection body but asserting that the resurrected bodily entity will not be subject to the frailty and corruptibility of the present age. The powers of the age to come will be operative without restraint in the resurrection—the body “is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” (1 Cor. 15:42, 43).

It is resurrection, therefore, that constitutes and inaugurates the believer’s final bliss. A notion of consummated bliss bereft of resurrection hope has no affinity with the prospect which Christianity defines.

Christ is the first-begotten from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. Christ’s own resurrection is the prototype. Even now believers are raised up with Christ in newness of life and mysteriously, though real, they are made to sit with him in the heavenlies (cf.Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1–3). But believers are not yet glorified; it has not been manifested what they shall be. The logic of their relation to the resurrection of Christ and to the resurrected Lord is that in the manifestation of Christ’s glory will be the revelation of their glory. It is with Christ they will be glorified (Rom. 8:17). “When Christ who is our life will be manifested, then shall ye also be manifested with him in glory” (Col. 3:4). How beggarly is any concept of final bliss that does not make the glory of Christ pre-eminent and paramount! And how impoverished is the outlook that can tolerate the thought of bliss apart from the exaltation of Christ in the resplendent glory of his future manifestation! The pole star of the believer’s expectation is “the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus.” And, necessarily, this is “the blessed hope” (Tit. 2:13).

Glorification with Christ and the bliss it entails for the people of God must not be isolated from the broader context of a renewed and reconstituted cosmos. “The creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). It is not simply the human race that suffered the curse incident to sin. The ground was cursed for man’s sake and the creation was subjected to vanity. The crown of God’s creation fell from original integrity, and curse, bondage, and corruption for the created order followed in the wake of man’s apostasy. His environment bespeaks the curse of sin. When redemption repairs man’s ruin it must likewise work its renovating effects in the whole creation. And with the consummation of redemption this restitution will be as complete in its own sphere as man’s redemption will be in his. Nothing less could be implied in “the liberty of the glory of the children of God.”

Renewed Creation

In the restitution of creation, the transformation will be as radical as are the changes embraced in the redemption of men. The regeneration of man requires a new creation, old things must pass away and all things become new (cf.2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). In the realm of cosmic renewal there must likewise be a new heavens and a new earth. And the process which effects this change is as convulsive and cataclysmic as that “the heavens shall pass away with a crash and the elements being burned up shall be dissolved, and the earth and the works that are in it shall be disclosed” (2 Pet. 3:10). The present heavens and earth are treasured up for fire; they will perish and will be folded up as a vesture (2 Pet. 3:7; Heb. 1:10–12). And the renewed creation will be a new heavens and a new earth emancipated from every trace of the curse and corruption of sin and pervaded by righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13).

The continuity which is exemplified in other phases of redemption must be appreciated here also. Sometimes the thought of Christians has been that the present heavens and earth will be annihilated. It is easy to understand how this idea came to be entertained. Of the heavens and the earth, we read: “They shall perish but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up” (Heb. 1:11, 12). And again: “The heavens shall pass away with a crash” (2 Pet. 3:10). But we should not identify “perishing” with annihilation. The same term is used of the old world when “being overflowed with water it perished” (2 Pet. 3:6). Yet it was not annihilated. Furthermore, the deliverance of creation from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God does not accord with the idea of annihilation.

The Image Of Christ

Whatever may be the precise character of the process by which the present heavens and earth will give place to the new heavens and new earth, it would be waiving the biblical representations to suppose that the latter would have no material constitution. We may not forget that the body of Christ’s glory is a physical body. And the glorified body of believers will be transformed into the likeness of the body of Christ’s glory (Phil. 3:21). The final bliss of believers is that of resurrection glory. And to think of the eternal state apart from the bodily and physical is to etherealize immortality after the pattern of pagan thought. It is to paganize the Christian hope. The disposition to etherealize the new heavens and the new earth is symptomatic of the same direction of thought. We truly know but little of the consummated order. But we are given sufficient data to know that the heaven of final bliss is one that will bring to perfect fruition all the demands of the psychosomatic nature with which God created man at the beginning and in which he will reconstitute him after the image of the glorified Redeemer.

Glory Of The Lord

And we are assured that the eternal habitation of the redeemed is one suited to the psychosomatic integrity which finds its exemplar and prototype in the glorified human nature of the Lord of glory. Man’s whole being will be full to capacity because the new heavens and the new earth will be constituted in righteousness and nothing will inhibit the manifestation to them nor mar the enjoyment by them of the glory of the Lord. The glory resplendent of the triune God will be there, and the tabernacle of God will be with men and he will dwell with them (Rev. 21:3).

John Murray is Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. He holds the M.A. and Th.M. degrees. His published works include Christian Baptism, Divorce, and Principles of Conduct.

It is a trite saying that “to treat a disease one must know the disease.” But we are not always logical in our describing a disease; too often we confuse its symptoms with its causes and then proceed to treat the former instead of the latter.

Thus, with any study on the problem of alcoholism, we are confronted both with an illness that develops within a person over a period of years to the destruction of his body and soul, and also with an array of analyses and treatments that have in the past proven either inadequate and ineffective, or mutually contradictory. Here is a review of just some of these more common yet deficient concepts of alcoholism:

Alcoholism is simply a moral problem. The alcoholic seems wilfully to reject responsibility, duty, good, and chooses deliberately an evil, irresponsible way of life. He may attain sobriety for a while, he may seem even to have reformed after declaring he will never drink again. Then in apparent renunciation of his resolves, he becomes hopelessly drunk, abusive and belligerent all over again. The moral answer, at the superficial level, seems to be true, but it is not the entire answer.

Alcoholism is an addiction. When the alcoholic withdraws from the addicting substance, his deprivation produces “withdrawal” symptoms, e.g., the “shakes,” terrible vague fears, extreme nervousness, “butterflies in the stomach,” nausea at the mention of food, insomnia, and the consequent craving for the one thing that he knows will alleviate these symptoms—“a little of the hair of the dog that bit me.” These are some of the withdrawal symptoms that we see in the alcoholic. The problem appears to be simple addiction. However, once the patient attains sobriety for a few days and starts eating again these awful withdrawal symptoms disappear. The physiological necessity for alcohol seems apparently gone. Then why, after weeks, months, even years of sobriety, does he start drinking again and end up exactly where he left off before? This has confused many who have worked with the alcoholic and has led them into concepts which imply psychopathology.

The alcoholic should be classed in the category of constitutional psychopathic inferiors (C.P.I.) A C.P.I. is a congenital liar, he is often in trouble with authority, and can never profit by experience. There is not much hope for straightening out such a one. Better to remove him from society. This concept, too, seems plausible. But alcoholics can straighten out. And they were not this way before they took alcohol. These characteristics came only after drinking, and the fact that they disappear with sobriety is the clinching argument against those who label the alcoholic a C.P.I.

The alcoholic, because he is recidivous, is psychoneurotic, or perhaps even psychotic. And what he needs is psychiatric care. Alcoholism is not a disease, it is merely the external evidence of an underlying psychoneurosis and should be treated by a psychiatrist. However, if this be the difference between a moderate drinker and an alcoholic, then curing him of his psychoneurosis would make it possible for him to return to moderate, or at least social drinking. But nowhere in literature has anyone claimed to have returned the alcoholic to social drinking. On the contrary, even after 10 years’ sobriety, a few drinks within a few days or weeks will bring him back to where he left off. This solution is apparently true, but it assumes that his defection is deliberate.

The alcoholic’s problem is physiological. This, of course, is also the judgment of the materialist (mind and body both can be explained by chemistry or physiology). And because only two per cent of those who drink actually become alcoholics, the defect then is probably genetic and predisposes or sensitizes him to alcohol. Again, this may seem a plausible opinion, particularly because so many of his symptoms are due to vitamin and other deficiencies. But it confuses the effects with the cause.

The alcoholic is socially maladjusted. He has family troubles, financial worries, maybe he has lost his job. But almost invariably the socially maladjusted individual, as a result of alcoholism, might use any of these as an occasion, not a cause, for going on a drunk.

The alcoholic is, in the last analysis, a complex problem, and what we need for him is the “team” approach. The physician, the psychologist, the social worker, the psychiatric social worker, the nutritionist, the public health nurse, all composing a clinic, can examine him and record their findings. But because each one thus approaches the patient from his own angle and with his own notions as to what the nature of the disease is, the results can be and often are quite confusing. What is the analogy here?

The Problem As Person

None of the above concepts get at the alcoholic’s fundamental problem. We should know first of all what sort of person he is and how he became an alcoholic. I repeat, only two per cent of those who drink become alcoholics. Can there be a common denominator among these two per cent?

I believe these two per cent may be characterized roughly as follows:

1. The alcoholic is basically the good-hearted, softhearted, tender-hearted fellow who would give you the shirt off his back. (This does not mean he cannot be selfish.)

2. He is of better than average intelligence. He is usually the better skilled workman, tradesman, salesman, executive or professional man.

3. He has, deep within him, feelings of inferiority and inadequacy; and the oftener he fails in his resolves to quit drinking, the less confidence he has in himself.

4. He is a sensitive person, easily hurt and stores these hurts and resentments. Usually after he has been on a “bender” he wonders, “Does he know? Does she?”

5. He is emotionally immature, and tends to solve his problems according to his emotions rather than his intelligence. He is impatient and wants the solution now, and the oftener he sidesteps these problems by getting drunk, the greater his problems become and the less able he is to face reality.

When the alcoholic comes to one for help, he has usually been drinking for some five to fifteen years or more and has been out of control for at least two years. He cannot tell you just when he became an alcoholic; as often as not he fails to realize he is one. He has gone from social drinking to the phase of contentment where he has developed a tolerance to alcohol that requires larger doses for relaxation. He does experience some unpleasant effects owing to increased intake, e.g., hangover or headache. From here he enters a phase of slight concern where his increased tolerance necessitates even larger doses of alcohol, and where he experiences probably his first “blackout.” Beyond this is the point of no return for him to normal drinking. He has more “blackouts” and begins to experience the “shakes,” “morning drink” and “craving.” In this phase, he is sensitive about his drinking, minimizes it to others, and tries sneaking an extra drink or two. He may even try cutting down with no success.

Following that period he enters the phase of resistance. Here he rejects any reformation of life whatever by rationalizing, lying, making alibis and resenting those who would help him effect a change. Other disease symptoms may begin to appear, such as peripheral neuritis or alcoholic gastritis; and his dependence on alcohol increases, while “desirable” effects of alcohol decrease.

From this point he is led to a phase of acceptance, either through fear of diseased reaction and associated problems, or through the interest of someone who, by instruction and sympathy, will help him gently to accept a new way of life. He may now be experiencing hallucinations of sight or sound, or dread delirium tremens, and he himself notices dulling of his mental faculties.

If, in this phase he seeks help and does not find it because of a lack of understanding, sympathy or patience on the part of those who would help him, he descends to the final phase of helplessness, hopelessness and despair. And it is at this point that he gives up struggling and either commits suicide, or dies in one of the terminal diseases of alcoholism such as cirrhosis, Korsakoff’s syndrome or pancreatitis. (This division of the progress of the alcoholic into phases is based on Jellinek’s “Profile of the Alcoholic” as modified by R. G. Bell of the Bell Clinic, Willowdale, Ontario.)

Twofold Addiction

On the basis of 12 years’ work with alcoholics in the various phases of their problem, it seems to me that the alcoholic has really a twofold addiction: first, a physiological addiction to alcohol characterized by withdrawal symptoms, and second, a long-range addiction to escape. The key to understanding the alcoholic is this twofold addiction coupled with his characteristic personality as outlined above. His entire situation is a vicious cycle in which his feelings of inferiority are increased as his problems are intensified. It finally becomes impossible for him to face reality (his addiction to escape), and this in turn accounts for the fact that even after a period of sobriety, if confronted again with his emotional problems, he will give way. The fact that he still has feelings of remorse and dissatisfaction with himself, however, suggests the key to the solving of his problem. And his problem essentially is a spiritual one.

This is what accounts for the success of Alcoholics Anonymous. Its “12 steps” constitute essentially a spiritual approach to the problem. If we had to do away with all treatments, save one, offered to an alcoholic, that which we would keep would be the one of A.A.

There are, of course, adjuncts to A.A. medical treatment for the physiological addiction is one, and this should be done by some physician who is cognizant of the patient’s full need, and at a time when the patient is remorseful, not the day after. Antabuse, which makes it impossible for a person to drink while he is taking it, and for six to fourteen days after, if he should discontinue it, is of tremendous help especially during the year or so that he is growing in the program of A.A. and only if, by the patient’s consent, he has a collaborator and both are receiving instructions from a physician.

But the basic approach that A.A. makes to the total (spiritual) rehabilitation of an alcoholic is possible only if he recognizes that the alcoholic must know and be willing to admit that he is an alcoholic (the 20 questions help to separate the alcoholics from the social drinkers), that he can never be a moderate drinker again, that as much as his relatives, friends or minister would like to do this for him, only he can resolve his own problem, and that he cannot do this by himself but needs help. Once he is convinced of the truth of these four things, he is ready for the 12 steps of A.A.

Briefly, these 12 steps may be paraphrased: “I am powerless over alcohol … There is a Power greater than myself, God … [I] humbly seek to know his will … [and] bring help to others …” Has this not a familiar ring—the conviction of sin, of helplessness, of turning to God, and then a life of gratitude? A.A. knows that “What I keep unto myself, I lose; what I give away I keep.” “Daily prayer and daily returning of thanks”; “You can only live today”—(cf. 20 Questions, self-scoring, under the title “Are You an Alcoholic?” and also “The Twelve Steps of A.A.”).

As we thus recognize alcoholism to be the spiritual problem that it is, we can see the implications that it has for the minister, and also the physician and social worker, or anyone else. He who would help the alcoholic must have sympathy, empathy, patience and perseverance. Unless he loves this helpless soul and has compassion for him, he should not even start. Once having started, of course, he must never give him up. Only the permanent sobriety or death of the patient can release one’s obligation to him.

The approach to the alcoholic is a personal one, well expressed at a meeting of the Norwegian Medical Society in 1956. After Dr. Wildhagen had given an account of his experience working with 487 patients in close cooperation with A. A., another speaker “… compared Wildhagen’s methods with those of the salmon fisher who hangs onto his prey by the hour till he has landed him safely. Wrestling for a whole night with his man, Wildhagen would at last argue him into a clear perception of his ailments and desertion of his defensive mechanism, achieving in one night what might otherwise have required weeks or months.”

Anyone who has worked with the alcoholic in all the phases of his problem, seen him when he is unconcerned or going through the terrible withdrawal symptoms, held a basin for him when he is sick, heard his sobs of remorse and despair, been with him when he finally surrenders to a higher Power and from there grows into sobriety and confidence, clear thinking and good judgment, a better man, husband, father, worker and citizen—anyone who has seen this happen to what appears a hopeless bum knows that he stands in the presence of the miraculous.

John F. Jellema, M.D., is Chairman of the Industrial Medical Association Committee on “Problem Drinking.” He is active in rehabilitation work, and cooperates with Alcoholics Anonymous.

You don’t know me, but my husband (wife, friend or relative) is drunk and we have pretty well come to the end of our rope and we can’t stand it any longer and we don’t know what to do. What do you suggest …?”

Most of us who have been in the pastorate for any length of time know what it is to receive a call like this and today such calls come more frequently. There are more alcoholics than ever before. Now that the disease has been brought into the open through education, the likelihood of any minister receiving such a call is becoming immeasurably increased.

Few of us any longer hold to the opinion expressed by one pastor of a large city church not long ago: “We don’t have that problem in our congregation.” The good brother, who declared he knew no alcoholics, no longer represents any considerable proportion of the clergy. Today, most of us have witnessed the agony associated with the problem and have known the frustration of trying to deal with it. Somewhere in our experience—if our people believed that they could come to us for help—we have met one or more of the 5,000,000 or so chronic alcoholics who, with their slightly more independent brethren, the 7,000,000 or so problem drinkers, careen their way across our land.

What are we to do about them? That depends on several factors, most of which can be recognized and analyzed: an accurate estimate of the problem of alcoholism, and the condition of the particular alcoholic you are trying to help. Each case is a unique experience, but there are certain rules of thumb.

Evaluation Of The Problem

Most authorities agree that chronic alcoholism is a condition (some call it a disease and the medical profession wishes it knew for sure just what to call it) which leaves the alcoholic helplessly unable to control his drinking. Whether physiological, psychological, emotional or what have you, the fact remains that the alcoholic is under the power of a compulsion over which he has no control by any voluntary means whatsoever. He drinks because he cannot stop drinking. He begs, lies, cheats and steals his way to the next drink because he is in the grip of forces stronger than his will or his imagination, not because he has been refused the truth about his, or his family’s condition.

A readiness to accept this estimate as factual is essential to any help you can give alcoholics. Many pay lip-service to the theory that an inebriate of the chronic variety is helpless, but then they proceed to talk to him man to man as if he has not realized the seriousness of his predicament. They ask him to promise this or that, and tell him that they are going to hold him to his promises. On his part, he insists that he can and will follow their advice. But he never realizes he is as sick as he really is. It is a part of his sickness that you cannot tell him, or expect him to do anything about.

But let us get back to the problem posed by the telephone call at the beginning of this discussion. Your inebriate may be in any of several stages of intoxication, ranging from the heavy drinking preceding actual drunkenness, to delirium tremens at the end, or a heavy hangover on the way back. What can be done will depend on the particular situation. In any case, one who expects to help should have the following information at his fingertips:

a. He should have the names and addresses of one or more doctors who understand the problem of acute intoxication of the chronic variety. It may come as a surprise to learn that an M.D. is no sign that its owner necessarily knows much more than the average layman about the intricacies of alcoholism. This is something about which very little is known by anybody. Even the nature of the “disease” is still an open question. Some excellent doctors simply do not have enough information or experience in this field. This is one reason why many refuse to take alcoholics as patients.

b. Secondly, it is essential to have the address and telephone number of the nearest A.A. group. If that address is in the next town, the distance to it should be no obstacle. But even more valuable than the address of some group would be the names and addresses of men and women who are aware of your genuine interest in A.A. and know your estimate of a given situation is likely to be accurate. You will get cooperation much more quickly if the person you call knows that you understand what to look for in such a situation. Hence, it is really helpful, in preparing for this ministry, to take the trouble to attend a few of the A.A. meetings.

c. It is important to have the address of the nearest institution in which an alcoholic may be placed and the rules governing admission to it, whether it be a hospital, nursing home, asylum or jail. Many hospitals—especially of the general or public variety—will not admit alcoholics. Hence, the county jail may be the only institution available for you at the time. And this is not as terrible as it sounds.

Wherever general hospitals admit alcoholics, it is ordinarily over the signature of doctors who have demonstrated that they know what they are doing and who will guarantee that the patient will not become a problem. I know of several hospitals that will admit alcoholics only for a particular doctor, and then they require that the patient be constantly attended by competent nurses until he is reasonably sober.

Some hospitals catering specifically to alcoholics require that those admitted be fairly sober upon admission. Hospitals offering complete rehabilitation programs will take only those who come voluntarily and who sign a pledge to remain for the full treatment. Such institutions will make little or no effort to keep an inebriate who becomes a problem—an important thing to remember, incidentally, when recommending an institution to the desperate family of a drunk on the crest of a big binge.

But in every state there are one or more institutions, usually operated by the state, to which an alcoholic can be forcibly committed, if necessary, by order of the local superior court and upon the recommendation of one or more doctors. These ordinarily take a patient for a minimum of 30 days and should be considered as last resorts. If the problem is simply one of keeping alcohol away from someone long enough to get him sober enough to deal with, the county jail may often be a good place to put him for a few days. In the county where I live, we have some very understanding public officials who know what to do for an alcoholic coming off a drunk. They will hold one on a minor charge for several days if the family pays the nominal cost.

Armed with the above information, which may be gleaned from druggists, welfare officials, Salvation Army personnel or police headquarters, you are ready to answer your telephone call. When you get there, the alcoholic’s condition will determine what happens next: Is he (or she) drunk or fairly sober at the moment? Is he violent or is he manageable? How long has he been on this particular spree? In short, how bad are the physical effects of dehydration, etc.? How long has it been since he had his last drink, or do the signs indicate that he is beginning to fight his way out of it? How old is his drinking problem? Someone may be looping drunk at the moment yet not be an alcoholic at all. Lastly, but most important of all, does he show any signs whatever of admitting that he needs help—not for the headache of the moment, but for the problem of alcoholism—and is willing to swallow his pride and ask for it?

Rehabilitation

Don’t expect to start right in with rehabilitation when you confront your alcoholic. Don’t expect to do much of anything, in fact, if he is still drunk. Certainly don’t waste your breath talking to him. That can come later when he is thinking more clearly. He may be on a crying rampage and spilling bitter tears all over the carpet, but if he is still intoxicated you simply leave him with the thought that you have something for him that he needs, and you’ll talk about it when he becomes sober. This must constitute the basis of your ministry to him until the situation is ripe for progressive therapy. For his family you have but one word of advice: “Don’t pamper or coddle him.” Love him, yes, but don’t try to protect him from anything (even jail) that will hasten the day of reckoning.

An alcoholic’s drinking can be stopped, but lasting effects will come only when he is cooperating in the program. Thus the goal to work towards is his own sincere admission that he sees himself helpless, and that the stark facts of reality have convinced him, not that he must do something about his problem, but that he cannot do anything about his problem. This is very important. It is an attitude I am talking about, not a promise or even an opinion. You cannot help a person who still vows and declares that he will do better; you cannot help him if he wants to be alone with his shame. You can help him only if—and not until—he is willing to crawl.

A man I once had occasion to deal with illustrates this point. On the day that I have in mind he was not drunk but very sick. He was in the throes of a monstrous hangover following a long drunk. The doctor, a very understanding man, and I were sitting in his room. He had been off alcohol and under medication for about 24 hours. It was only a matter of time before he would be all right, but meanwhile he was having a rough time of it. Did he want to get over the awful taste in his mouth and the gnawing pain in his stomach? Surprisingly enough, he did not. He wanted, instead, to get drunk again. He made it very plain to the doctor and me:

“I want a drink,” he said. “If you don’t give me one I’m going to get one somehow.”

“Don’t you want to clear up your head and get back on your feet?” asked the doctor.

“I’m afraid of the snakes,” the man whimpered.

“But I promised you that you would not have snakes,” the doctor assured him. “The drugs I have given you will safeguard that.”

“Well, then, I just want a drink,” the man hedged.

“You mean you would rather get drunk again than let us help you,” the doctor corrected.

“I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, Doc,” the man said, “nor yours, either,” he directed this last remark to me; “but that is just about the long and short of it.”

It made no difference that his desire to get drunk was ostensibly to relieve the headache, the pain in his stomach and the awful taste in his mouth. So long as he did not want to become sober, and so long as the hell he had been through was not something he would rather escape at any price, there was nothing that either the doctor or I could do for him, unless we were prepared to have him forcibly restrained.

In this particular case, restraint finally became necessary. After 10 more days of drinking, during which he managed to get more liquor either by telephone or in person, we finally had to put him in jail, as there was no family money for hospitalization. In a few days our friend was able to think more rationally, expressed an entirely different desire, and at last got help.

This, then, is the first step in helping an alcoholic. If he is drunk, he must be rendered sober. And he either will want to become sober (which is usually the case) or, like my friend above, he will not. If he wants medical attention, smells offensively, and his case history indicates that he will not come out of his condition in a day or two, the thing to do is call the doctor and, if possible, try to get him to a hospital. If you expect to have him on your hands longer than 30 minutes while taking him wherever you are going, ask the doctor if he would recommend about two ounces of whiskey for him before starting out. Your inebriate may need it if he is still under the influence, or if it has not been long since his last drink (less than 12 hours), but only if you are certain that his dazed condition is due to liquor and not the use of barbiturates. A little drink will guard against the violence that may erupt with less than two seconds’ notice if he is deprived too suddenly of liquid sustenance. The qualification relating to barbiturates is to prevent disaster. Alcohol on top of a stomach full of pills will aggravate the effects of the drug, and you may kill him.

If a hospital is out of the question, then your patient may be treated at home so long as the family realizes that a little firmness and a lot of patience will be required. They have probably been through this before. The doctor will use several of a large selection of drugs, beginning with sedatives that may include healthy doses of paraldehyde or something similar, to encourage sleep and guard against delirium tremens. He then will prescribe vitamins and further protective medication including, perhaps, one of the drug derivatives belonging to the “cortizone” family. Much later he may suggest one of the “alcoholic-allergy” drugs such as antibuse that rather effectively prevents further drinking so long as the patient is taking the drug.

Once the cobwebs have been swept from his brain, an alcoholic enters his second phase of treatment. Here the deciding factor is his desire to remain sober. This is not quite the same problem as the earlier one. Almost every drunk wants to sober up after a few days or weeks on the stuff, but it’s another thing to want to leave the stuff alone after the effects of it are gone. And still another thing to be unashamedly willing to confess that you cannot leave it alone without help.

From this point on, honest differences of opinion exist among counselors in how to proceed. Something must be done, not only to the alcoholic’s habits but to his personality. Sooner or later, in the opinion of many, a vital religious experience must take place, not only for the necessary power to stay sober but also for an adequate, overall adjustment to life. The minister may want to take the alcoholic in hand and attack his problem on the basis he believes will give him a religious experience. A psychiatrist may want to apply his methods of help. And the sociologist may want to improve his environment and his outlook on society.

Personally, while I recognize that an alcoholic must ultimately undergo a revolution in character and personality, and while I believe that this can only be effectively done through a profound appreciation of the meaning and power of the Christian faith, I prefer to leave the first steps to Alcoholics Anonymous. It is my conviction, after considerable experience with alcoholics, that this fellowship offers the best initial help. True, the direct religious approach that bypasses Alcoholics Anonymous sometimes succeeds. Spectacular successes have been registered by devoted persons who, critical of anything less than the highest and most holy, have rejected the rather casual approach of A.A. and have gone straight to the heart of the problem. But I cannot agree with such methods, if for no other reason than the fact that a much smaller percentage are affected by the direct approach of well-meaning but inexperienced people, and too many are frightened away. A.A. has done wonderful things in the treatment of chronic alcoholism. It represents the profoundest sort of reality. It promotes the start of a healthy spiritual vitality, and it is a launching platform from which those who wish to go further can take their departure.

Alcoholics Anonymous

The next phase of the treatment, therefore, necessarily involves A.A. or A.A.’s principles. Since this article is not directed at experts but beginners in the business of alcohol rehabilitation, I will say, unhesitatingly, that this procedure should be followed in every case. A.A. literature should be employed and contact with an A.A. group should be made. Pamphlets will introduce the program and provide illustrations of its effectiveness, and members of any A.A. group will take matters in hand promptly if it is the alcoholic himself who has asked for help. A definite and immediate program of action will follow, and will provide for those periods in the alcoholic’s life between binges and before the craving takes him on another wild ride.

To recapitulate, then, these are the emergency steps in the first stages of alcoholic rehabilitation: 1. Render the alcoholic sober if he is drunk, or provide the means whereby he can be made sober. 2. Put him in touch with an A.A. group if he is ready to ask for help. Meanwhile, the single theme to be pounded into his head from the time he can think clearly enough to understand is the simple message: You can get help when you really want it.

Unfortunately, all efforts to help may not be successful and your alcoholic may promptly fall off the wagon after a few days of shaky sobriety. If so, the whole heartbreaking process will have to be repeated again and again until the daylight breaks through and sunshine floods the soul. Remember, some alcoholics who have conquered their problem were drunk (not simply drinking) 10 years or longer; some have lain in bed too drunk to stand without help four and five months at a time. The story of alcoholism is that simple, that terrible, that “hopeless”—but that full of hope.

Each case, of course, is unique and no pattern for any other. However, one recent experience, which I might relate, illustrates perfectly the principles I have set forth as necessary for recovery. This problem, incidentally, of all those in my experience, was the most easily solved and should not be considered average.

One day a highly distraught, middle-aged man came to see me. It was about his sister who was an alcoholic. Only slightly younger than he, she had been drinking, off and on, for many years. A week or so earlier she had come to town to visit her elderly parents for the Christmas holidays, and the combination of festivities and her own loneliness (her husband had left her some time ago) had proved too much; she had gotten drunk. Evidently it wasn’t much of a binge—just enough to make her very sick. Apparently she had had other times like it, for this one left her much weaker and much sicker than a single, two-day drunk normally would have.

I asked the man whether his sister really wanted to stop drinking. He did not know, but he felt sure she did. The day we talked about it was the third since she had taken her last drink and, according to him, she was quite sure she did not want to get drunk again. The man did not know what to do. I gave him some A.A. literature, including a fine booklet entitled “A.A. for the Woman” and told him to get across to his sister the simple message that she could get help.

The next day the phone rang. A rather fuzzy female voice on the other end of the line asked if this was Dr. Taylor. She identified herself as, shall we say, Mrs. Jones. She had read the pamphlets and was very much interested to know that there were women in the world who had evidently been through experiences worse than hers, and who were now happily sober. But (she spoke with some difficulty) she needed more than anything else right now medical attention, and would I help her get in touch with a doctor. Her parents would not allow her to leave the house for fear she would get drunk. I gave her the name of a doctor who would provide what she needed. She asked me if I would call him. I said no, that she would have to call him herself. Then I excused myself and hung up.

The next day the phone rang again. It was Mrs. Jones. The doctor had come to see her, had given her some drugs and intimated that if she really wanted to stop drinking she could have all the help she needed. She was now calling to find out if I would give her more information about A.A. I told her that I would put her in touch with A.A., and if she wanted help they would come out to see her. She wanted to know if they would give her money to get back home. I said no, and after a few pleasant words I hung up.

She didn’t call again until the next day. Ordinarily any other alcoholic by this time might have gotten drunk again. But Mrs. Jones’ father and mother had guarded her with firm determination, not letting her leave the house and thus forcing her to “tough it out.” Again, she wanted to know more about A.A., and this time I gave her their number. She asked if I would call them for her. I said no, that she would have to call them herself and tell them just what she had told me. We hung up, and about 20 minutes later she called back to say that she had talked to someone at the A.A. club and they had promised to be out within two hours.

I did not hear from her until the next morning. When she called, there was a new note in her voice. She still felt somewhat shaky, admitted that she had almost not made it up the stairs to the meeting the night before, but intimated that her heart was light and her hopes were high. A man and a woman, who had come to see her the afternoon before, had persuaded her parents to let them take her to a meeting that night. She was bubbling over with the experience from which two things stood out in her mind: so many people with problems worse than hers had found peace, and God was wondrously good.

Two Sundays later, a stranger identified herself after the morning service as Mrs. Jones. If this story were fiction, I could say that she looked years younger than her age. She didn’t. But she looked happy. And she is now headed for a new and vital experience with Jesus Christ as her Saviour.

G. Aiken Taylor is Minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Alexandria, Louisiana. He holds the Ph.D. degree from Duke University. He is author of A Sober Faith; Religion and Alcoholics Anonymous and St. Luke’s Life of jesus.

This year the brewing industry proudly notes many of its accomplishments since the time of its rebirth, 25 years ago. The distilling industry also joins with the brewers in celebration of the repeal of the 18th Amendment, an occasion “which should be meaningful not only to brewers (and distillers) but also to millions of others who have benefited from relegalization.” So spoke the president and chairman of the U. S. Brewers Foundation, E. V. Lahey, a few months ago.

He pointed out that the national economy at the time of repeal in 1933 was suffering the “deepest depression of the century” and that relegalization of the liquor traffic had brought billions of new taxes to the government, and billions of dollars to American farmers and workers. Beyond this, he implied, the industry should be grateful that 22 per cent of the beer customers are women, that the tavern is now a respectable place, that the tavern operator is “a good citizen and a credit to his community,” and that “a good job has been done in keeping the public sold on the premise that the operation of breweries and taverns is compatible with the American way of life.”

Blessing Or Bane?

This 25th anniversary of repeal is not solely of interest to the liquor industry, however. It is also an excellent time for concerned persons to study the liquor ledger and find out for themselves whether the return of legal traffic has been a blessing or a bane to our people.

What is the nature and philosophy of the liquor traffic? Its product is ethyl alcohol—bottled, advertised and sold in a thousand varieties of color, flavor and dilution. In every alcoholic product from applejack to vodka, ethyl alcohol is that colorless, merciless intoxicant and anesthetic that wrecks cars, homes and human lives. It is what a great scientist defines as “a destroyer of personality.” The huge profit from the sale of this ethyl alcohol is the chief reason for the existence of liquor traffic.

No other group tries harder to claim respectability than does the liquor traffic, and no organization is more mocked at every turn by crime, economic waste, highway wreckage and a sorry retinue of 5,000,000 men and women alcoholics.

Not Their Brothers’ Keepers

What precisely is the philosophy behind this traffic? What manner of men are those who compose it? How do they justify their life work? Were we to interview a typical distiller or brewer we might well expect him to say, “Why, certainly we are in a legal business. If we don’t make and sell liquor, someone else will, and we might as well get the profits. Of course, we’re aware that people get into trouble through the use of it, but they ought to know when to quit. If they’re going to drink too much that’s their hard luck. What about highway accidents? We’ve as much legal right to sell whiskey as auto makers to sell cars. Autos kill people, don’t they? Are we going to ask that companies quit making cars? And about alcoholics. We are not responsible for them. They’re just people who can’t take it. If they didn’t get liquor, they’d go bad in some other way. Besides, we’re willing to use some of the exorbitant taxes we pay to rehabilitate the alcoholic. Now, what more can one ask? We’re as legal and respectable a business as any.”

In the face of that argument, let us present the facts. No other commercial enterprise has required so many municipal, county, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations to check the damaging influence upon modern society as the liquor enterprise has. The liquor traffic in our nation’s history has required two amendments to the Constitution of the United States to reduce or eliminate just the harmful effects.

If liquor traffic is a legal business, then for these reasons alone it is in an entirely different category than any other business in America. It is a privileged business, permitted to operate in certain areas, and only by the sufferance of the people. Three-fourths of the states have local option laws which give to people of counties or local areas the right to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Under these laws the people in about one-third of our counties have banned the sale of such beverages. Of course, they do not ban the sale of bread, shoes, automobiles or gasoline; these are essential and useful commodities. But alcoholic beverages are not only nonessential, they are dangerous; and that is why their sale may be banned by vote, and that is why the 21st Amendment allows the people of any state to deal with them as they see fit, including total prohibition if that is their desire.

Definite Liability

What about the revenue from these products? Is this not important? Certainly it is, but not as an asset. Liquor taxes are actually “liability” taxes. For every dollar they bring in to the government, from four to twelve dollars must be paid for police, jail, court, welfare and rehabilitation by the tax-paying public. An official study made by the commonwealth of Massachusetts 15 years ago showed an income of 13 million dollars to the state from liquor, with direct costs of drunkenness to the state, 61 million, or over 4 to 1. These figures did not include the indirect costs of absenteeism and economic losses.

Last year the American people spent over 10 billion dollars for alcoholic beverages. Let us assume that 5 billion of that were taxes, and the other 5 billion went for grain, labor, bottling, transportation and advertising. This 5 billion, of course, could better have been spent for wholesome products. Therefore, were we to add to that lost 5 billion another 20 billion (4×5 billion for taxes, representing cost of taking care of liquor damage based on Massachusetts figures), we would have a minimum liability of 25 billion dollars as against 5 billion brought in as revenue. In other words, we would spend $5 to collect $1 in taxes.

And then there are the broken Repeal promises—that the bootlegger would disappear, and that the saloon would be forever abolished. But bootlegging thrives today in wet states as well as dry, and in place of saloons there are close to half a million taverns, cocktail lounges, night clubs and liquor stores where ethyl alcohol is sold by bottle, barrel, can or glass.

No Moral Concern

What about the broken promises concerning advertising? Pierre S. Dupont, a staunch Repeal advocate, stated in 1931 that “advertising is one of the most fruitful means of increasing business and promoting sales. As it is the policy of this country to reduce sales of liquor, no advertising of any kind should be permitted to manufacturers or sellers.” Yet today, simply because it is now a legal business, the liquor traffic spends an estimated four hundred million in advertising for beer, wine, and other liquors. And because it apparently lacks any social or moral concern, it is advertising its wares as if they were safe, wholesome and beneficial. This is why the liquor traffic can be called a corrosive evil in modern society.

One of the great concerns of the church has been a ceaseless activity on the part of liquor people to recruit new patrons. As alcoholics and older customers die off, they must be replaced. The liquor traffic, therefore, though it protests its innocence, aims much of its advertising at young adults, and is influencing teen-agers as well.

Because of its inferiority complex due to the stigma and restrictions that have been connected with it, the industry works hard to throw an aura of respectability about itself. This effort extends all the way from local tavern owners’ participation in Community Chest and Red Cross drives to intimate contacts with officials high up in the United States government.

Much could be said about the close liaison of the liquor traffic with military and service installations, and alcoholic beverages at NCO and officers’ clubs. The U. S. Brewers Foundation representatives constantly contact top military men to make sure servicemen have ready access to alcoholic beverages.

The liquor industry cultivates the closest possible business relationships with officials of state liquor monopoly systems by playing up the revenue aspect. It promotes close ties with manufacturers of containers, transport systems and others that benefit from the trade, and to the extent that these businesses seek the patronage of the liquor industry, they themselves become part of the liquor traffic.

Particularly menacing is the corrosive influence of liquor traffic on the public press and broadcast media of the nation. It is well said that “there is a very sensitive nerve extending from the liquor advertising department to the editorial desk of our great metropolitan dailies.” Acceptance of liquor advertising generally brings with it a strong, wet editorial policy. Similar attitude is evident in radio and television. The hiring of popular TV stars like Arthur Godfrey by Schlitz, and George Gobel by Pabst, for instance, pays big dividends in slanting program content in favor of alcoholic consumption.

Furthermore, the liquor traffic is allowed to deduct from taxes all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during its taxable year in carrying on its trade or business. This means that the 400 million dollars spent for liquor advertising and “beercasting” to persuade and encourage people to drink may be deducted by the liquor traffic as a legitimate business expense. But persons who contribute to temperance organizations which seek constructive temperance legislation find that their gifts are nondeductible for income tax purposes.

In a case before the U. S. Supreme Court right now, the liquor traffic is seeking to get tax exemption for money spent by its constituency for advertising campaigns to block temperance legislation. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the liquor traffic, the latter will then have a double advantage. Not only will liquor advertising expenses be deductible, but all money spent by the traffic to block regulatory or restrictive legislation at the national, state or local level will also be tax exempt. But persons contributing to national or state temperance organizations which engage in legislative or lobbying activities would still be unable to claim tax exemption on these gifts.

What can be done to protect society against the corrosive influence of such a danger?

First, there ought to exist rigid laws reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages. Local option laws in many areas ban the sale completely, and under the 21st Amendment, whole states may vote themselves dry whenever a majority of voters decide to do so.

Second, young people need to be convinced that abstinence is the safe and wise way, and the church needs to give to its members basic education on the effects of alcoholic consumption.

Society’s hope lies in pushing forward to the day when men engaged in the liquor traffic will be forced to remake their businesses into constructive industries producing wholesome and worthy products to the blessing and benefit of all men.

Clayton M. Wallace is Executive Director of the National Temperance League, Inc. He edits The American Issue and The Alcohol Education Digest. He is a frequent speaker on temperance subjects in churches throughout the country.