The Place to Start

The practice of medicine is based upon certain established procedures. First, the physician must diagnose the ailment of the patient. Second, he must determine the prognosis. And third, he must provide the cure. If the illness is fatal and there is no cure, all he can do is to make the patient as comfortable as possible for the remaining days of his life. But if the patient is expected to live, there are several possibilities. For some minor ailments the physician can let nature take its healing course; he can use drug therapy; he can use surgical therapy; he can prescribe a change in diet, rest, exercise, or other aspects of the patient’s way of life; or he can combine several of these options. Some patients suffer from a chronic complaint that cannot be cured, at least with present knowledge, and they must learn to live with the handicap.

The procedures and options are roughly similar for those who wish to cure the economic, political, and social illnesses of our day.

United States senator Mark Hatfield recently quoted approvingly a proclamation of the Protestant Confederation of France concerning the state of modern French society. The confederation said: “The present economic and political system of our society is unacceptable. The domination and manipulation of the weak by the strong in the socio-economic activity is radically incompatible with the Gospel.” Senator Hatfield accepts this diagnosis and goes on to say: “Our [U. S.] wealth and our standard of living is a cause of endless other problems such as our energy crisis, the ruining of our physical environment, and our outright monopoly on the world’s basic resources. But, at its heart, such wealth simply manifests corporate selfishness, and individual self-centeredness.” He goes on to speak of other sins such as lying, cheating, stealing, and drug abuse.

Hatfield has called attention to many of the illnesses that characterize the national life of America and other countries. There may be differences in degree but certainly not in the kind of ailments. A coronary occlusion can be minor or massive; an allergy can be incidental or monumental.

We commonly hear “prophetic” voices analyzing the ills of society. Regrettably, these prophets are usually long on analysis and short on therapy. Symptoms of the sickness of society are easily seen in every nation in our day. The despoiling of the physical environment is as serious (if not more so) in Moscow, Bangkok, London, Tokyo, and Rio as in New York. The Mississippi River and the oceans surrounding the United States are not more polluted than the Rhine, the Ganges, and the Yangtze and the oceans into which they flow.

“The domination of the weak by the strong in the socio-economic activity” is no more pronounced in the United States than in China, the Soviet Union, South Africa, Chile, Spain, and North Viet Nam.

The energy crisis is not a solely American phenomenon. The standard of living of all the industrialized nations has produced the same problems everywhere. And the energy crisis is also to be found in underdeveloped nations where there is little wealth and the standard of living is exceedingly low. In India there is sure to be famine within a year or two because of oil shortages (India cannot afford to buy the oil needed for making essential fertilizers) and because of the demand for more food for a population that increases daily and requires additional food at a time when there is sure to be less. Tens of thousands of Ethiopians are dying right now. And the Arab nations that have vast money reserves from their oil sales are doing virtually nothing to meet these human needs around the world.

For all its faults, the social, economic, and political system that exists in America today is better than its counterparts in all other nations. Can anyone point to another existing—not theoretical—system that works better for a sizable number of people? To change from a relative free-market economy to doctrinaire socialism or to Marxism would not solve the world’s current problems. Indeed, there is good reason to believe it would make them worse.

The evils that have developed in capitalism (which, as Marx stated, has its origins in the Mosaic law) are due not to an inherent weakness in capitalism but to our failure to apply stewardship under the law that undergirds the commandment “thou shall not steal.” This is the law of love: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself.

The remedy for the world’s ills lies in the acceptance and practice of the law of love. There can be no permanent cure of political, social, and economic ills until this law of God becomes regnant in the hearts of men. Even if all men were to acknowledge and try to obey this commandment (which they will not), to make the world what it ought to be would require the most exacting commitment and the most diligent labor.

In this kind of world, Christians who profess this law of love are called to do all they can to provide a cure for the ailments that beset men and nations. We continue to affirm that the place to start is to preach the Gospel of salvation, which leads to changed and changeable hearts. Believers, rather than repeatedly denouncing the evils of society, should be taught specific ways to contribute to the healing of society for the good of men everywhere.

The Pardon Of Richard Nixon

The pardon granted to Richard Nixon by President Gerald Ford did not end the Watergate controversy, as public response indicates. Even if it had, would that have justified a pardon at such a time? A pardon releases a person from liability for an offense. But Mr. Nixon had not admitted guilt, nor had he been given any judicial penalty for commission of a crime. How can a person be released from all penalties for an offense before charges have been brought or his culpability has been established? God pardons repentant believers without injury to justice because Jesus paid the penalty and we accept him as our substitute. Was Mr. Nixon’s acceptance of the pardon an acknowledgement of guilt? If not, why did he accept it, since that implies guilt?

Can those who take a strong law-and-order position approve the pardon and still maintain that position? And if they do approve the pardon, should not the same have been done for all the Watergate offenders and draft evaders as well? How will the pardon affect the cause of justice in the trials of men like John Mitchell and John Erlichman? Mr. Nixon has been subpoenaed and presumably could be subjected to rigorous cross-examination. If, in the course of his own testimony, he were to admit guilt, would justice be served if Mitchell and Erlichman were convicted at least partly on the basis of the testimony of one who has been put beyond the law’s reach?

The necessity of dealing with illegalities and immoralities in high places must be faced even if it conflicts with the government’s obligation to end domestic strife and restore a measure of common purpose. Unless there were overriding reasons of which we have no present knowledge, it would appear that President Ford was mistaken in granting the pardon when he did. But let us not suppose that he was influenced by base motives, nor by any obligation to Mr. Nixon, who in effect chose him for the post he now occupies.

It is a moral obligation for Americans to continue the quest for justice and to understand Watergate and its implications for our individual and public standards and conduct. At the same time we must try to end the paralysis that so hampers our ability to deal with external and internal problems.

Youth And Religion: A Rare Change

The Jesus movement among young people and the continually growing ministries of older evangelical youth organizations such as Inter-Varsity, Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, and Young Life are indeed cause for rejoicing. But before waxing rhapsodic over “revival,” let us keep the broader picture in view.

A respected national polling organization found in 1969 that 59 per cent of the sixteen-to twenty-five-year-olds interviewed considered religion of some kind to be a “very important value” in their lives. This year a comparable poll found that only 39 per cent in that age group feel the same way! “Changes of this magnitude in so brief a time span are rare,” observed the research team. One of the most noticeable trends in this year’s poll was for noncollege youth to come closer to the attitudes of their collegiate counterparts.

Corresponding to the decreasing importance of religion was a loosening of moral attitudes. Only 31 per cent, down from 52 per cent, consider casual premarital sexual relations to be wrong. The proportion who thought “living a clean moral life a very important value” fell steeply also, from 71 to 52 per cent. (Considerably more blacks than whites valued a clean moral life.) Not quite everything is bleak from a biblical perspective however: 75 per cent of youth would welcome “less emphasis on money,” up 6 per cent from five years ago.

We should rejoice at reports of flourishing evangelistic activities and growth in Christian discipleship. But we dare not overestimate what has been accomplished. The task of sharing the Gospel and forming mature Christians does not proceed on its own momentum. We cannot coast. We cannot be indifferent to reaching young people because we think others are doing the job adequately. The need is greater than ever. □

Some Thoughts For The Era Era

In the News section of this issue the results of a CHRISTIANITY TODAY survey on the place of women in the Church and in society are reported. A small survey based on responses to a questionnaire may involve some self-selection and is not, of course, as revealing as interviews of a large cross-section. And Christians are to take the teaching of Scripture rather than human opinion as the rule of faith and practice. Nevertheless, the survey merits attention, especially as it indicates that the majority of evangelicals may think otherwise on this issue than the popular impression would have it.

Most respondents favor the fundamental idea behind the Equal Rights Amendment, and so do we: the view that there should be no arbitrary discrimination among people on the basis of sex. We would, however, agree with those of our respondents who warn that the present amendment would produce a Gordian knot of legal and social (and grammatical) entanglements that would put bread in the mouths of generations of jurists to come. We do feel that many respondents, even the theologically trained among them, are inadequately coming to grips with the biblical doctrine of Creation and the reality of a Creation order. Much analysis and reflection remains to be done.

We note that almost all respondents want more women to be included in responsible positions of Christian leadership, as we have already urged editorially (see September 13 issue, page 51). This survey shows that a gap remains between attitude and act. We urge that the two be brought together.

To Live Is To Pollute

To talk about ending pollution is vain. To exist, man must pollute. Modern technology has created new kinds of pollution, but it has greatly reduced older kinds. Anyone who could take a trip back in time could determine that for himself. Or, for that matter, just travel around the world a little. Primitive peoples and developing societies do not pollute as much per capita, but the accumulation is still sufficient to make most travelers glad to return to a homeland that because of technology has more pollution but is also more healthful. Smog is at best a nuisance, and a high carbon monoxide level in one’s bloodstream is dangerous. But technology also provides air that doesn’t stink, food that isn’t rotten, and water that isn’t infested with parasites.

Although we can’t end pollution, we can keep it under reasonable control. It costs money to clean up the air, the water, the streets, and anything else. But such costs have to be weighed against the real, though sometimes harder to detect, costs of not cleaning up after ourselves. Anti-pollution devices on automobiles are costly both to make and to keep working, but a study by the National Academy of Sciences (that cost half a million dollars) estimated that as many as 4,000 deaths and four million illness-related days off per year could be caused by auto air pollution in urban areas. We can’t eliminate auto air pollution completely, any more than we can stop all highway deaths. But we can improve the records in both areas.

Any new technology needs to be carefully scrutnized; its potential for increasing pollution, illness, and death should be compared to its potential for benefit. For example, during the debate over the SST aircraft one of the worries expressed was whether the nitrogen-oxide emissions might weaken the ozone shield in the upper atmosphere, which in turn could allow an overdose of the sun’s ultraviolet rays to reach the earth’s surface. MIT researchers now report after two years of study that such fears were well-founded. The possible benefits to a relative handful of people who would be able to cross the oceans a few hours faster are not worth the possible risks to our planet’s delicate ecological balance.

No, we cannot end pollution. But we can decrease it, and we can take a responsible interest in keeping our society from introducing unnecessary new sources of pollution and risk.

Three Great Certainties

The great English preacher John Henry Jowett once said that the Bible is a limitless quarry out of which he had had the privilege of extracting a few blocks of marble in his lifetime. Every generation of Bible students can say the same thing. There is always more marble left to be quarried. The Apostle Paul left us enough in his writings to last us a long time.

The eighth chapter of Romans is one of the finest of the Pauline blocks of marble. From the eighteenth verse to the end the chapter Paul speaks of a sure hope, a sure help, and a certain salvation. These are worth pondering in an age of great uncertainty, when the whole world is threatened by economic dislocation, numerous wars, and the possibility of nuclear carnage despite the claims for an enduring state of peace.

Speaking of the sure hope Paul mentions our present sufferings, which are not to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed. He pictures the creation’s bondage to decay and its groaning in travail. Then he goes on to talk of Christians’ inward groaning as they wait for the redemption of their bodies. And this waiting for the redemption is not a present reality; it is a future hope. Once Christians embrace this hope that is theirs in Jesus Christ, they wait with patience for its fulfillment.

While believers wait for the redemption of the body they must live from day to day. God has not left his people stranded, without succor until their hope is realized; Paul tells us of the sure help of God for day-to-day living. We have the Holy Spirit, who aids us in our weaknesses. We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit intercedes for us “with sighs too deep for words.” And he does this in accordance with the will of God for our lives. There are no accidents, no happenstances, no afterthoughts in the plan of God for us. All things do work together for good. And the greatest of all goods is the assurance that God will make us like Jesus Christ. We have been called; we have been justified; and at last we will be glorified.

Paul ends chapter eight by touching upon our certain salvation. All things are subject to the vicissitudes of time and decay—except our salvation. God is for us; who then can be against us? The Lord Jesus died, rose from the dead, and now intercedes for his people, and we are more than conquerors through him. Life’s great uncertainties yield to God’s certainty; life’s ambiguities cannot change God’s immutable purpose; life’s worst and man’s and Satan’s attacks cannot overthrow us—nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

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