God and the Future

EDITORIALS

From time immemorial men have tried to pierce the veil that shrouds tomorrow. Millions have paid to have their palms read or their heads measured, in search of clues to their future. Throughout history men have scanned the stars, peered into crystal balls, and read decks of cards in an attempt to foretell what lies ahead. For more than 400 years the prophecies of Nostradamus in his book Centuries have captured the fancies of the fatuous. Today horoscopes are readily available in newspapers and in national magazines.

Man’s desire to know the future sets him off from fish, birds, and beasts, who give no thought to either yesterday or tomorrow. This desire is surely unquenchable. Is it also futile? Or is there some means by which man can discern, however dimly, what the future holds for him? The Christian who takes the Bible seriously believes that he finds there an outline of what God has in store for his people. What does this mean? To what extent has God, who not only knows the future but is the same yesterday, today, and forever, revealed the future?

The Bible foretold the first coming of the Lord Jesus, which was of course a future event for the writers of the Old Testament. The Bible also tells us that Jesus Christ will come again, and virtually all the great creeds of Christendom bear witness to this prediction of an event still to come. The Bible foretells the victory of God over Satan and the elimination of evil from the cosmos. It promises the resurrection of the dead and assures believers of their residence in the New Jerusalem, the city of our God, that will come down out of heaven.

The Scriptures sketch the characteristics of the closing days of this age, prior to the consummation of history. They predict a falling away from the faith, the continuation of wars and rumors of wars, and a period of time called the great tribulation. Paul speaks of times of stress in the last days and says that “men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it … of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith” (2 Tim. 3:2 ff.).

None of us can claim to know whether the last days are now upon us. What we do know is that believers ought not to be surprised when Jesus comes. They are cautioned to be prepared for this event, and not to let the end of the age catch them unawares. This can only mean that while there will be signs that portend Christ’s coming, they will be of such a nature that even Christ’s followers may possibly misread them and thus fail to sense their significance. Christians are not to sleep but to watch.

For a large part of the world, the last days will have no meaning. Jesus says that for them it shall be “as in those days before the flood” (Matt. 24:37). Men will eat, drink, marry, and give in marriage as though nothing extraordinary were occurring; it will be “business as usual.” Even as Noah’s contemporaries laughed at his warnings, so will men laugh at Christians who point to the nearness of Christ’s coming and the end of the age.

It is good that Christians are becoming more interested in the study of prophecy. The Jerusalem Conference on Prophecy this month is one indicator of this concern. We hope that the Church everywhere will reflect this interest and that the pulpits around the world will lay before Christians the great biblical teachings about Christ’s Second Advent. We trust that this will be done, not with gloom and despair over a world that is passing away to be no more, but in a radiant spirit of hope and optimism, reflecting the Christian’s conviction that this will be God’s climactic event in the long history of man.

The Presbyterian evangelist J. Wilbur Chapman caught the right note in his hymn One Day:

One day the trumpet will sound for His coming,

One day the skies with His glories will shine;

Wonderful day, my beloved ones bringing;

Glorious Saviour, this Jesus is mine!

The Fda Versus Scientology

The oldest active case in the District of Columbia Courts comes to trial once again June 7. Way back in January, 1963, the Food and Drug Administration raided the local Scientology church and seized its counseling aid known as the E-meter, charging that it was a false and misleading device. During ensuing trials Scientologists claimed infringement of their freedom of religion and insisted that the E-meter was not used fraudulently or harmfully. The case is not yet settled.

We do not endorse the religion which is known as the Church of Scientology. It claims to be concerned primarily with man’s day-to-day life, and does not have dogmatic beliefs about the nature of God or eternal salvation. Therefore, Scientologists say that one can remain an adherent of some other religion while also identifying with them. Their use of the word “church” is like that of the Buddhist Churches of America, or of the entry “Churches—Jewish” in the yellow pages of many telephone directories. In other words, “church” is the conventional term for a Western religious organization and is not restricted to groups that are specifically Christian. Indeed, Scientology boasts that it is “the spiritual heir of Buddhism in the Western world.”

Anyone who believes, as we do, that in Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness of life in him …” (Col. 2:9, 10), cannot endorse or participate in a religious system that professes neutrality on the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate. But it seems clear that Scientology is indeed a religion, and we believe in freedom of religion (and from religion) for everyone. Only in the gravest of situations, such as religiously motivated human sacrifice or torture, should the state act to prohibit or restrain the free exercise of religion.

No such case can be made against the E-meter. With all the faith healing that goes on, or is attempted, in the name of Roman Catholicism, Christian Science, and roving tent evangelists—sometimes to the accompaniment of devices much more bizarre than the E-meter—we cannot understand why the federal government has picked on this one small religion. There are only some 500 full-time ministers in the country and about 100 local churches and missions (a third of the world total).

Undoubtedly Scientology has created enemies by its attacks on secular psychiatry and psychology. Its short creed includes the belief “that the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in non-religious fields.” But Christian Science goes much further than this by believing that all illnesses and injuries, not just those that are mentally caused, should be treated religiously. Scientologists do send people to physicians and surgeons for non-mental illness. And Scientologists claim that they are much better at curing mental problems—major or minor—than secular practitioners. They so emphasize the practical results of their method that it is hard to see why people would long continue in it unless they felt they were receiving benefits. But Scientology has apparently made itself socially useful by providing free rehabilitation programs for drug addicts.

Given the wide debate within secular medicine over the nature and treatment of mental illness, may it not be that in bringing charges against Scientology’s E-meter the FDA has overreached itself? Will not religious freedom suffer if the court sustains the charges?

Biblical Debut At Union?

New York’s Union Theological Seminary, like many other educational institutions today, is in trouble. For all the supposed impact of the ecumenical movement, it is apparently insufficient to sustain the financial health of even one prestigious independent theological school.

But the problem goes far beyond the treasurer’s office, according to a New York Times analysis by Edward B. Fiske. Indeed, President J. Brooke Mosley is quoted as saying that part of the problem is to determine what the problem is, and, alas, what the purpose of the 135-year-old seminary is.

Interestingly enough, the seminary is now said to be undergoing something of a resurgence of theological orthodoxy. A new emphasis on personal piety seems to be taking hold. Small prayer groups are meeting in dormitories, and there is a revival of interest in the parish ministry. Most of the people interviewed at the seminary told Fiske that the new spiritual movement grew out of disillusionment with liberal institutions.

Perhaps President Mosley already has his answer and simply is not aware of it.

Prescription For Pleasure-Seekers

A medical educator says he wants the government to spend millions to develop a safe drug that will alter consciousness. He says many persons in our society think they need some drug to give them pleasure—whether alcohol, marijuana, or something stronger—so let’s give them something safe.

There is a certain benevolence and yet a resignation to hopelessness in what he says. It is the best he can offer to those caught up in the plastic existence of cop-outs and truth evasion.

Many drug-users are searching for a deep sense of well-being. But, as thousands of recent converts from the drug scene attest, you can’t rely on a chemical high. The pleasure-seekers need Jesus Christ. His is a natural high of love, joy, and peace—the best prescription for facing real life.

The Right To Worship

Four years ago this week, Jews and Arabs turned the Holy Land into a major battleground. The six-day war sent map makers back to their drawing boards. Its outcome left tensions and hostility between the two sides more intense than ever. Yet there has been little open warfare ever since. We can be thankful, but not complacent.

The problem in the Middle East is not simply political. Because it involves a city considered holy by three major religions, and for other reasons, it is a problem that deserves special Christian concern. What a service it would be to the cause of Christ and to the human race if Jews who are Christians and Arabs who are Christians could get together and exercise some initiative toward a peaceful settlement.

The immediate focus for such talks could be the question of religious freedom. This is the most basic of all human freedoms. But despite all our supposed sophistication, and as a result of the population explosion, there are more people living today who do not enjoy religious freedom than at any other time in recorded human history.

What’S In A Flag?

Flags are waving all across the country. Demonstrators lower the Stars and Stripes and raise the Viet Cong flag in violent protest against violence and war. Young people wear flag shirts and dresses and ties, even flag motorcycle helmets, and paint stars and stripes—or the peace symbol and stripes—on their cars. Other Americans wear the flag as jewelry (flag pins are seen even on policemen’s uniforms) or display flag stickers on their car windows. The flag has become the symbol of both protest and patriotism.

Unfortunately, protest and patriotism are often considered mutually exclusive. Anyone who criticizes government policy cannot possibly have the country’s welfare at heart, say some flag-wavers. But neither protest or patriotism necessarily excludes the other. Those who love America will want to improve it, and this means pointing out its faults.

As June 14 approaches, let Christians, of all people, honor Old Glory, remembering that the flag can and should symbolize both responsible protest and high-principled patriotism.

When The Foundations Crumble

In America, foundation gifts to educational institutions, Christian organizations, and other works that contribute to the welfare of the nation have been the life blood that has kept many of these endeavors alive. Recent legislation that imposes an income tax on foundations and limits their life span may at first glance seem desirable. The requirement that foundations begin distributing their corpus will increase the amount of money available for charitable causes for a few years. But the long-range effects will be disastrous, for the new law will eventually reduce the amount that can be given, and in time the well will dry up completely.

No one can dispute the fact that some foundations have been set up as tax dodges or have in other ways operated in a manner not intended by the laws under which they were set up. But this is no reason to punish the many foundations that operate legitimately and with commendable motivation.

These past few years have been trying ones for Christian enterprises that look to foundations for funding. When foundations crumble, we can be sure that the government will not—and should not—step in to support religious endeavors. We hope Congress will speedily take steps to maintain the viability of foundations while it makes certain that they operate legally and fairly.

A Blow To The Smut Trade

In two decisions almost unnoticed amid the hubbub of peace demonstrations in Washington May 3, the United States Supreme Court greatly strengthened the hand of law-enforcement officials in dealing with pornography.

In United States v. Norman Reidel, the court by a vote of seven to two reversed the U. S. District Court for Central California, which had held that Reidel’s arrest was unconstitutional. He had offered for sale through the mails a booklet called “True Facts About Imported Pornography” illustrated with obscene photographs, and was arrested by postal inspectors.

The Supreme Court in 1969 in Stanley v. Georgia ruled that a person could not be prosecuted for possessing pornographic material in the privacy of his own home, without intent to exhibit or sell it. The California court held that, if a person had a constitutional right to read it, Reidel had a right to mail it to a prospective purchaser. But the Supreme Court reaffirmed the position it took in Roth v. United States (1957), that the Post Office has the power to prohibit obscene materials from being sold through the mails and that obscenity does not enjoy the protection of freedom of the press. Reidel must therefore face trial.

In the second case, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, the court upheld six to three (Black, Douglas, and Marshall dissenting) the right of customs officers to search the baggage of returning tourists and to seize anything that violates U. S. law against importation of obscene materials. The appellant, Milton Luros, contended the photographs were intended for publication in a book he was writing.

Whatever may be the scope of a person’s right to have obscene materials in his personal possession in the privacy of his home, the court majority held that this right “does not extend to one who is seeking to distribute obscene materials to the public or to import obscene materials from abroad, either for private use or public distribution.”

Many law-enforcement officials believe that had decisions in the two cases gone the other way, it would have nearly destroyed two of the government’s most powerful weapons against the smut trade: authority to seize material at customs and authority to bar use of the mails to distribute it.

The Supreme Court has, in these cases, halted its long trend toward permissiveness in this area and dealt a sharp blow to the widespread pornography trade. If prosecutors will follow through, a lot of smut peddlers will soon be heading for appearances in court.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.