Tenth Anniversary of Vatican II

Tenth Anniversary Of Vatican Ii

October 11, 1962, saw the formal opening of the Second Vatican Council, convened by Pope John XXIII with high hopes that it would rejuvenate and invigorate the Roman Catholic Church and make it a more powerful force for evangelism and spiritual development in an increasingly ecumenical era. As we look at the results ten years later, we see the immense church in disarray and confusion. Papal authority, fundamental doctrines, traditional moral teachings are everywhere challenged, often disregarded, sometimes repudiated with impunity by prelates and office-holders who show a sovereign contempt for the hierarchy and church discipline. At the same time there is widespread evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit: formal questions of church membership often take a back seat to the matter of personal faith in Jesus Christ, witnessing, and charismatic phenomena and gifts.

Evangelicals may sense the new hope that is alive in the Roman church, but they must also sympathize with the confusion and distress of so many traditional Catholics who look to their church for clear, authoritative answers on spiritual and moral problems. It is at this point that the swelling Catholic interest in the Scriptures offers hope for perplexed souls, if not necessarily for structures, for “all flesh is grass … but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isa. 40:6, 8).

The Mystery Of Crime?

In a recent column, Washington Star columnist James J. Kilpatrick evokes “the continuing mystery of crime in America.” He writes, “By almost any yardstick, the United States is the most advanced nation in the world.… Yet ours is a lawless land, probably the most lawless in the world.” FBI statistics show a 7 per cent increase in serious crimes in 1971 over 1970, paralleled by a declining record of punishment of the criminals.

But the phenomenon is not limited to the “violent” United States. In London, armed robberies averaged about 135 per year between World War II and 1956, but by 1969 they had increased to 950. The number of murders is also rising rapidly, from 106 in 1970 to 177 in 1971 (figures by M. F. Harvey in National Review, Sept. 15, 1972, p. 1,025). A similar increase can be noted in other European countries, not to mention the waves of terrorism perpetrated by extremists of various kinds, often against innocent victims.

A 1968 study published by the influential Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche, inspired by the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy, concluded that the most effective deterrent to crimes of violence was a widespread conviction among the general public that those acts are wrong and are to be condemned. But this conviction in turn is produced, the Weltwoche study maintained, only when crime is speedily punished. The study found swift justice much more needed than especially severe punishment.

All this seems to be simply one more modern statistical affirmation of something clearly taught in the Bible: “Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). If the Bible is a reliable guide to the divine order of things—and thus also to human nature—the rising crime rate in America and elsewhere should be seen not as a “continuing mystery” but as exactly what we should expect. (In fairness to Mr. Kilpatrick, we ought to mention that he is mystified not merely by the continuing rise in crime statistics but also by the way in which they often fail to respond to well-conceived and determined efforts to bring them down.)

Theologians commonly speak of three uses of the Law of God: as a restraint (on lawless conduct, to prevent society from becoming chaotic), as a mirror (to show the natural man what he really is, namely, a sinner in need of the grace of God), and as a guide (for the converted believer, who is no longer under the rule of law, but who still needs direction in order to live in a way that pleases God).

Ideally, human law could have similarly salutary value in the secular realm: if properly drawn up and adequately enforced, it would function as a restraint on the lawless, who might abstain from certain crimes out of fear of swift punishment if for no other reason; as a mirror, to make individuals more aware of their all too human propensity to put their own interests above the welfare of others; and finally as a guide for all of us who like to think of ourselves as being good, public-spirited citizens, but who nevertheless just might find ourselves straying without it.

Unfortunately, in the present spiritual climate in the West, law is considered as by nature an oppressive burden, best abolished, ignored, or if necessary openly violated. Hence our society takes its predictable course, unimpeded in its suicidal bent by restraint, self-knowledge, or guidance. To deal with the problem evoked by Kilpatrick, a return to swift justice and speedy execution of sentences would be highly desirable: justice deferred, for the guilty as well as for the innocent, is justice denied. But we will never be able to take such a step until we reassess our attitude toward law as a principle, and realize that in a fallen world populated by fallible human beings, good law, well enforced, is not a burdensome necessity but a good gift and a prerequisite for social and individual peace and freedom. The nature of law must be rethought and its positive value reasserted.

Most Likely To Succeed

The murder of Israeli athletes at Munich shows a need for much greater cooperation among nations and their police forces. Psychologists and crimefighters who have studied hostage-holders have found patterns of operation and quirks of character that could help police decide what responses would be most likely to succeed. The Munich police and the West German government had had little experience in such matters. The probability of securing the release of hostages would be increased if the experience of those who have handled or studied previous incidents—the lessons from Quebec, Attica, and Uruguay, from skyjackings and all the similar sordid events of our time—could be brought to focus on the problem at hand. International information-sharing would at least reduce the odds that, in the aftermath of Munich, seem to favor the desperados.

On Leaving It To Hanoi

North Viet Nam’s interpretation of the murder of the Israeli athletes at Munich is instructive. Hanoi claims that the Israelis and the United States allowed the Munich massacre so as to validate reprisals; hence Israel and the United States are aggressors. The Munich incident, say the North Vietnamese, “laid bare … the dark design of the Nixon administration and their flunkies to wreck peace under the hypocritical label of ‘humanity and peace.’ ”

North Viet Nam has consistently supported the Arab revolutionaries and opposed Israel. Somehow many Americans who are pro-Israel have refused or neglected to see the connection. The Hanoi government is not simply carrying out the desire of innocent people to maintain the integrity of their motherland. The Communists wish to impose their will on millions of South Vietnamese who don’t want it, and they support guerrilla movements like those of the Arab fanatics.

The Munich disaster lays bare once again the mind set of Hanoi. There is no reason why an agreement in Viet Nam could not have been reached long ago were it not for Hanoi’s intransigence. The United States would not have resumed bombing North Viet Nam if Hanoi had not invaded South Viet Nam. The message Hanoi seems to be sending is that it will reach an agreement with the United States only on its own terms. This attitude minimizes the possibility of a negotiated settlement, whether before or after the U. S. election. It remains then for the United States to decide which of three courses to pursue: (1) Concede South Viet Nam to Hanoi; (2) leave South Viet Nam after establishing a balance between Saigon and Hanoi that will enable Saigon to fend for itself; (3) knock out Hanoi one way or another so that Saigon could control all of Viet Nam.

Neither of the U. S. presidential contenders supports complete military victory over Hanoi. But the two part company in choosing an alternative. Senator McGovern advocates conceding all of Viet Nam to Hanoi (and there is no evidence to support the contention that unilateral withdrawal would bring home the POWs), whereas President Nixon advocates complete withdrawal as soon as Saigon can defend itself.

The American voters should consider carefully the views of both candidates on this issue before making up their minds which way to vote. Neither position is free from moral ambiguity. Despite the clamor about corporate and national guilt, the outcome rests with individual citizens, who must wrestle with their consciences and not just their party labels before they vote.

Religious Studies On Campus

For scores of years college religious-studies departments were generally viewed by friend and foe as extensions of the chaplaincy. Sectarian theology was presented in evangelistic or prophetic style as “the truth.” Understandably, tax-supported institutions shied away from any entanglement of church and state that might be implied by the presence of a religious-studies program.

But in the past decade or so, religious thought, institutions, and behavior have been granted recognition—often grudgingly—as a proper subject for academic study. This is only right. Religion is indisputably at least as much a part of man’s cultural heritage as politics, economics, literature, or philosophy.

The problem is that to win recognition as an academic discipline, religion professors in secular schools have bent over backwards to separate themselves from the indoctrination role that such departments were thought to play in denominationally or interdenominationally controlled institutions. With few exceptions, orthodox believers of any religion have not been welcomed in these secular religion departments. This is not to say that the men and women teaching in the field do not have strong religious views of their own, often of a syncretistic or latitudinarian or live-and-let-live nature. Anyone reading the products of their pens would see that all sorts of religious views are promulgated (including some religiously held anti-religious views; see, for example, the news story on the University of British Columbia [page 52], where the head of religious studies has gone on public record as opposing all religions, while at the same time advocating a quasi-religious substitute cooked up by a psychiatrist and himself).

Evangelical professors are numerous enough in certain disciplines—the natural sciences, history, and literature, for example—to have their own flourishing professional societies. But the evangelical professors in religious studies at secular schools on this continent could probably meet comfortably in a small seminar room. Religious studies has become one of the most popular departments for students who want to consider questions about the meaning of life. An evangelical professor could not, of course, be an evangelist in the classroom, but his very presence would let the students at secular campuses know (as those at good Christian schools learn) that intelligence and knowledge are not incompatible with simple faith in the historic Gospel.

Unfortunately, there are many more qualified would-be professors of religion than there are posts available. But with the rising demands of blacks, women, and other underrepresented groups in the professorial ranks, the time has come for evangelicals to demand at least token representation as well. This is best done on a school-by-school, state-by-state basis. The way will not be easy, but the example of Britain, where the comparatively few universities are secular and which has at least two dozen evangelicals in religion departments, shows it can be done.

The secular university is one of the most crucial institutions of our society. Even as evangelicals are active as “salt of the earth” in business, government, and athletics, so they must be actively involved within universities too, and above all in the increasingly important religious studies departments. Teachers of religion at evangelical colleges should consider applying for positions at secular campuses, and dedicated young people are to be encouraged to prepare for careers in academic religious studies.

‘The Lord Is At Hand’

Ironically, the activity that God intended to be the Christian’s greatest comfort becomes for many the greatest source of discomfort. Few Christians are satisfied with their prayer life. Hymns that speak glowingly about the “sweet hour of prayer” only increase the discomfort level—even if we make allowances for the hymnwriter’s poetic license, and for the probability that he is expressing aspirations rather than continual attainment.

It is commonly thought that the hustle and bustle of contemporary life is not conducive to prayer. Many workers and students spend long hours commuting. Housewives may have young children demanding continuous attention. (It is embarrassing to find out how much of our hymnody and classical devotional literature has come from the pens of those who had servants to do their tedious or time-consuming chores. When the servants found the time for spiritual exercises is not disclosed.) Of course, much of the sense of not having enough time comes from sources we can control—television, to name only one.

Another aspect of contemporary life also crowds out prayer. Not so long ago, when anything went wrong, about all one could do was pray. Modern technology has pushed prayer considerably down on the priority list. It has become a last resort, after such tools as bombs, dams, and medicine have failed.

The disciples of old asked the Lord, “Teach us to pray,” and we need to do the same. Often we let ourselves be influenced by false conceptions of prayer. One common misconception is that we can pray only when we have plenty of time. But “the Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5b). He is not remote, or approachable only at specified intervals or through designated mediators. He is not like the head of a nation or large corporation. Because of this Paul can tell us, “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (v. 6). Only as we consistently follow the command to tell God everything can we experience the accompanying promise that “the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (v. 8).

If we are uncomfortable about our praying, there is no better way to start dealing with it than honestly to tell God about our problem. He has given us the privilege of prayer, not to make us ill at ease, but to bring us peace.

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