Let no one underestimate the gravity of the hour as President Nixon prepares to travel to Peking this month. Surely the trip is one of the most daring diplomatic exploits of modern times. It will attract worldwide attention, and rightly so. Nixon’s meeting with Chou En-lai (and Mao Tse-tung) will go down as a pivotal event of history.

The Peking talks offer a virtually unprecedented opportunity to surface the truly important issues facing those who live in the closing decades of the twentieth century. There are so many disagreements between the two countries that the adoption of an agenda can in itself be counted as no small marvel. Indeed, the immensity of the differences conceivably could become a plus factor if they force a discussion of fundamental questions. And this would serve to prod both American and Chinese leaders to do some deep thinking ahead of time. Ideally, each man should come to the summit fully aware of the presuppositions on which his life-and-world view rests. To do so would equip them for the most fruitful kind of exchange, an exchange that could benefit not only the Americans and the Chinese but all human beings, those now living and millions yet unborn.

No issue is more basic than religious liberty. Of all the subjects to be discussed, none could be regarded as more profitable. Religious liberty is foundational to all human rights; yet there is ample evidence that in our supposedly enlightened times the number of people in the world who enjoy any substantial measure of it is declining!

A discussion of political perspectives or even the physical needs of people is pointless unless the prior claim of religious freedom is acknowledged. If a man cannot live for what he regards as most crucial, then what is the point of living at all? Suppression of religious freedom is the supreme injustice.

Fortunately, there is some common ground that makes discussion possible. The constitution of Communist China pledges religious freedom, and Mao has said, believe it or not, that in his country “all religions are permitted … in accordance with the principle of religious belief. All believers … enjoy the protection of the people’s government so long as they are abiding by its laws. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe; neither compulsion nor discrimination is permitted.”

Unfortunately, the practice appears to contradict the policy. The facts are aptly summarized by a former Seventh-day Adventist missionary to China, M. E. Loewen, now an associate editor of Liberty, in that publication’s January–February issue:

Article continues below
I know … that within a few years of the Communist takeover in 1949, nearly three out of four of all professed Christians in China abandoned ship and, in many cases, became the most bitter foes of their former associates. How many Christians survived the purges of 1966–67 is unknown. It is sure that the church, as a visible entity, was wiped out. Hundreds of thousands of Christians vanished. Most are presumed dead. The survivors are underground.

Nixon could do no better than to ask Chou and Mao to explain the apparent gulf between promise and practice. If the Chinese leaders have the best interests of their people in mind as they say, let them show the West open churches. If they truly wish to help end the war in Viet Nam, let them induce Hanoi to release American missionaries who have been held captive for nearly ten years. If they conscientiously want to promote international understanding, let them use whatever influence they have with the Soviet Union to ease restrictions against Christians and Jews there.

The President should admit candidly that Christians in America have hardly begun to live up to what they profess. But he might also share with Chou and Mao the fact that Christianity in the West is stirring with new life—indeed, that young people who only months ago had been looking to other secular messiahs are now turning their eyes to Jesus. These two leaders would be well advised to recognize that it is only a matter of time until Christianity rises again in China—with or without their help—if it is not already doing so.

Lenten Fruit

Symbolic of the forty days Christ fasted in the desert, the season of Lent invites meditation on Christ’s passion and resurrection, and mourning and repentance for our sins. In one of his sonnets John Donne expresses the need for creative, directed penitence:

O might those sighs and tears return again

Into my breast and eyes, which I have spent,

That I might in this holy discontent

Mourn with some fruit, as I have mourned in vain;

In mine Idolatry what showers of rain

Mine eyes did waste? what griefs my heart did rent?

That sufferance was my sin, now I repent;

’Cause I did suffer I must suffer pain.

The image of the fruit-bearing is apt for Lent, which is from the Middle English lente, meaning springtime. Lent is a season for sowing seeds of repentance from which we grow to fruitful Christian maturity.

Mabel Myrin

The death on January 3 of Mrs. Mabel Pew Myrin took from the world a great benefactress. Mrs. Myrin was a daughter of the founder of Sun Oil Company and a sister of J. Howard Pew, who died last November (see lead editorial, December 17 issue). She was a member of the board of the Glenmede Trust Company, which administers charitable trusts established by the Pew family. Over the years these trusts have given literally millions of dollars to aid Christian causes. Because the Pew family has always been reticent about allowing any public recognition of the gifts it makes, few Christians are aware of the extent to which many evangelical institutions have benefited.

Article continues below

Most wealthy people are noted for the way they lavish luxury upon themselves. Mrs. Myrin’s long life (she was 82 when she died) showed that it doesn’t have to be this way. She devoted herself to the long-range welfare of others. She gave generously not only of her means but also of her time and talent to social involvement in the best sense of that term. She was engaged in numerous educational and charitable enterprises and was a member of the board of Adelphi University, Ursinus College, and the Presbyterian Hospital in Philadelphia.

Fling Out The Banner

“It is a hopeful sign that a younger generation of evangelical Christians is beginning to see the need for larger evangelical demonstration. They know that the social struggle cannot be won by bumper stickers.”

So notes CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S editor-at-large, Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, in his recent book A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration. Later on he comments that evangelicals could “conceivably wear an identifying armband, perhaps of green as a symbol of hope for a better day (rather than of black to mourn the present), or they might adopt some other equally simple alternative that the hawkers of gimmicks cannot commercially exploit.”

Since he wrote these lines, there has been a great surge of evangelical visibility—from the almost universally recognized “one way” signs flashed by youthful Jesus types (and not a few of their elders) to bumper stickers asking motorists to “honk if you love Jesus.”

We rejoice in this new demonstration of witness to our Lord and his Word, despite the all too apparent violation of Henry’s injunction against exploitable symbols.

Throughout the Church there seems to be new attention to colorful proclamation through symbols and banners. An Evanston, Illinois, firm reports lively sales of its “colorful, easy to assemble felt banner kits.” Joyful themes predominate, and everything from dowel rods and acrylic yarn cords to glue and instructions is provided.

Article continues below

We note approvingly that even such traditionally cool-on-symbolism church bodies as the Southern Baptists are warming up to bannering the faith. In Temple Hills (Maryland) Baptist Church, for example, a huge banner with a cross and crown faces the congregation from the front of the sanctuary. The yellow cross and purple crown are traditional enough, but emblazoned on the cross is the closed hand with upraised index finger and the words “one way.”

While not depreciating in the slightest this new thrust in evangelical symbolism, we also call for a revival of the time-honored custom of displaying the Christian flag in our churches and, where feasible, places of business.

The idea for this flag was born in 1897 at Coney Island, New York, when a Sunday-school superintendent told an evening church audience that he thought a Christian flag should be designed and displayed in churches throughout the country. The flag was made, using the basic colors of the U. S. flag with a red cross in the blue field to represent Christianity. Use of the flag soon spread throughout most Protestant church groups.

One imaginative Christian layman, owner of a family campground near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, flies the Christian flag at the park entrance. It is a symbol to believers that Christ is honored there, and a conversation starter with both believers and non-believers.

Let’s unfurl the flag of Christ above a consistent and credible witness so that in this age of competing loyalties men may march under no lesser banner.

Principles And Prejudices

When United States District Court judge Robert B. Merhige, Jr. ruled that the predominantly black school district of Richmond, Virginia, must be consolidated with the schools of the two surrounding counties to achieve a 70:30 ratio of white children to black throughout the three jurisdictions, he did more than deal a blow to those parents who have found sanctuary for their prejudices in the largely white suburbs. He also vindicated one principle in the moral sphere and subverted two in the areas of education and government.

The suburban exodus from the central cities has not been motivated solely by a hatred of apartment-dwelling or a love of commuting. It also involves a conscious or unconscious attempt to escape the problems and responsibilities facing the urban centers. Judge Merhige’s decision, if upheld, will mean that suburban Richmond parents may be able to escape big-city problems for themselves, but that they no longer can isolate their children from them. If this forces the affluent suburbdwellers to consider the city’s problems their own, it will be a vital step toward getting those problems solved.

Article continues below

This moral gain, however, may turn out to have been bought at a very high price in the quality of education available throughout the Richmond metropolitan area. Unless one is willing to adopt the racist position that predominantly black schools are necessarily inferior no matter what their facilities and resources, one has to admit that merely changing the racial mix in all the schools will not necessarily improve any of them. The decision reasons that the middle-class suburbanites will improve the motivation and interest of the disadvantaged urban blacks; but given man’s fallen nature and the present state of permissiveness in education, it is not impossible that the badly motivated urban pupils will win out over the suburban ones, thus spreading urban discontent rather than traditional suburban values.

Although Judge Merhige voluminously supports his view that the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires bussing, we cannot overlook the fact that the framers of the Amendment never envisaged such elaborate directives coming from their simple prohibition. The proper place for dealing with such problems is in the legislatures, both state and national; but because the law-makers shy away from their responsibility when faced with such a hot issue, federal judges are forced to resort to law-making in an attempt to remedy the growing crisis. If there is any future for our form of constitutional democracy, it surely does not lie in such legislative abdication of responsibility. Judge Merhige’s decision is at best only a stop-gap expedient, for the problem must finally be faced and resolved both in individual hearts and in the halls of Congress. □

From Servant To Advocate

Major Catholic charities may soon take on a new political role. A detailed plan for restructure of the National Conference of Catholic Charities was unveiled in Washington last month. If it is approved, the conference, which claims to be the nation’s largest private charitable agency, will become the social-action arm of the Roman Catholic Church in America. A prime function will be to lobby in behalf of poor and oppressed Americans.

The question raised by the plan is whether a church hierarchy ought to be trying to tell the government what to do. The helplessly poor need and deserve a strong voice on Capitol Hill as well as in statehouses and city halls. But even more important is the need for the American citizenry in general to develop a greater concern for the underprivileged. This entails an educational process and in many cases a spiritual revelation, and it is here that the Church ought to become involved.

Article continues below

So much thinking today focuses on the hope that our social problems would dissolve if only we could apply the needed leverage upon government. But thank God in the United States the government is still of the people, and if the people have the will the government will have the will. In fact, we would probably find that if the Church were properly sensitized, the problems would be cared for to a large measure at the grass roots without recourse to the government.

A Short-Lived ‘Concept’

A promising attempt to serve the nation’s Sunday-school teachers and others involved in Christian education has regrettably been shelved after only a three-month trial.

The National Sunday School Association was founded in 1945 and serves more than seventy evangelical denominations and countless congregations. A year after it began, NSSA became an affiliate of the National Association of Evangelicals, but it has its own headquarters building and constituency. Last September with a big fanfare NSSA launched a new periodical, Concept. The subtitle described its purpose: “Bringing a new horizon to Christian education in the Sunday school.”

Financial considerations are thought to have led the NSSA board to suspend publication with the November issue. This is too bad, for it is far more costly for the many denominational and independent publishing houses to attempt to provide on their own the kind of information Concept contained. Understandably, each publisher wants to bring certain slants and helps to the users of its particular materials. But many articles, reviews, and suggestions are of value regardless of the curriculum used.

Is it too much to suggest that Sunday-school publishers divert some of the money they now spend to produce general teaching aids to NSSA so that it can take Concept off the shelf? Perhaps Concept could be mailed out along with each publisher’s supplement.

We hope something will be done to provide Sunday-school teachers with a monthly periodical of general interest and helpfulness.

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

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: