America’s Stake in the Middle East

Most of the world heaved a sigh of relief when the recent Israeli-Egyptian pact brought a temporary respite from the threat of war in the Middle East. The basis was laid for further discussions of the major problems connected with the presence of the state of Israel in Palestine. Among these vexing problems are the plight of displaced Palestinians, the return of the rest of the Egyptian territories taken by Israel in the last war, the role of Jerusalem, control of the Golan Heights, and the development of a live-and-let-live policy, if not actual friendship, between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Henry Kissinger performed a “miracle” in securing the agreement. But it was a miracle that could not have happened without important concessions by both sides. The Israelis made great concessions, perhaps more than Egypt. Their loss of military and oil installations could be a large disadvantage to them if Egypt were to start another war. Yet Egypt did sign an agreement that leaves roughly four-fifths of the Sinai peninsula in Israeli hands.

The United States has promised Israel financial and other kinds of help. Why has this nation involved itself so heavily in the Middle East? Why was it willing, in negotiating the recent pact, to pay a heavy price both in money and in promises that commit it to defending Israel if a war should jeopardize Israel’s existence? Walter Rostow, undersecretary of state in the Johnson administration and now a professor at Yale Law School, supplied an answer in a speech he gave months ago before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. Rostow made clear that the United States is not a disinterested party:

What are the interests of the United States in the Middle East? The first and most basic is the geopolitical importance of the Middle East to the defense of Europe. Our alliance with Western Europe is absolutely essential to the balance of world power on which the primordial safety of the United States depends. On this proposition there is nearly complete unanimity in the United States. But the larger part of public opinion is not fully conscious of the fact that Middle Eastern conflicts are not isolated regional problems, but are integral to the security of NATO.

If the Soviet Union were to achieve domination of the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East, it would outflank the NATO defenses in Central Europe, and threaten Europe from its soft underbelly, as president Pompidou once remarked. It has been painfully obvious since October, 1973, that hegemonial control of the oil, the space, and the mass of the region by the Soviet Union would carry with it dominion over Western Europe as well. NATO would be dismantled. Europe would be reduced to the status of Finland—a major supplier of technology and consumer goods to the Soviet Union, on favorable credit terms of course.

For its own security the United States needs a peaceful and stable Middle East that leans to the West and shuns Soviet domination. The American people should be informed quickly and clearly what their national interest is in the Middle East and why what Kissinger did was so important to this goal. The promises that the United States has made to Egypt and Israel are a part of the price of self-defense. Anything less than peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Israelis would be inimical to the best interests of the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world.

For Christians there is another dimension to the Middle East situation. We want peace not only for the usual reasons but also because of what many believe to be God’s ongoing special relationship with the Jews, and to make possible the existence of Christian minorities and Christian evangelization among the Arabs.

Assassination: A Ghastly Record Grows

Some Americans may have trouble remembering how to spell “assassinate,” but few can forget the meaning of the word. The recent attempt to kill President Ford adds one more item to America’s record, the worst among developed nations. (Of course, Japan and France have both had experiences in this area. A number of attempts were made to kill General DeGaulle.) It was forty years ago that Senator Huey Long of Louisiana was cut down. Chicago’s Mayor Cermak died when a would-be assassin missed Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Harry Truman narrowly escaped death. Then came the very bad years: John Kennedy; Martin Luther King, who though not a political office-holder was vulnerable in the same way; Robert Kennedy; George Wallace, who survived but with crippling injuries.

President Ford kept a commendably cool head after the attempt on his life. He would not, he said, go into hiding behind the White House fence, losing access to the public. He realizes that he and other holders or seekers of high office must accept the possibility of injury or death as an occupational hazard.

We are so to live, says the Bible, that whether we live or die we magnify the Lord. Self-preservation is not to be the Christian’s strongest drive; he is to devote his time and energy to the service of God, whatever the consequences. Those who seek high political office must have a similar dedication.

Non-Divine Welcome

More than 2,500 years ago the first emperor of Japan was enthroned. He was considered the Son of Heaven, descendant of Amaterasu the Sun goddess, and therefore divine. Over the centuries his successors on the throne have been worshiped by their subjects.

This month the United States welcomes to its shores one of those descendants, Hirohito, the first reigning Japanese emperor to visit America. While biographers say he never thought of himself as divine, millions of Japanese have thought—and do think—otherwise.

Many Japanese were shocked when Hirohito took to the radio in August, 1945, to acknowledge defeat at the hands of the Allies. Their shock was as much at the revelation that “the Mikado” had a voice like theirs as at the news of surrender. On the first day of the following year, Hirohito told his people that the emporor’s relationship to them did not depend on the concept of divinity. But two and a half millennia of tradition do not vanish easily. When the first constitution was written in the last century, the deity of the ruler was written into it. Generations of school children had it drilled into them.

Various forces in Japan are still trying to take advantage of the religious vacuum created by the emperor’s official renunciation of divine authority. There are attempts to get the government to sanction religious practices that include Shinto ritual. Christian periodicals devote considerable space to alerting their readers to the “shrine issue.” Certain leading politicians have cast their lot with those who wish to give official preference to a religion that worships symbols of nationalism.

For over four centuries, there have been efforts to communicate the Christian faith to the Japanese. The response has been minimal. Barely 1 per cent of the population now claims to be Christian (of all stripes).

We hope the emperor gets a hearty welcome to the United States. Beyond this we hope that as his visit is reported to the people of Japan they will get a clear picture of America’s greatness. No small element in that greatness is the fact that the United States has learned that its leaders have feet of clay and are not to be treated as gods. Acknowledgment of this basic belief about man’s nature has enabled Americans to have unprecedented freedoms, with religious liberty at the top of the list. Instead of being prescribers of religion, leaders of the United States have been protectors of religious freedom.

Islam’S Bid To Recover Its Glory

Leaders of the Muslim world show signs of making a conscientious comeback in the religious scene. Some apparently hope to pull together the diverse elements of Islam enough to make new impact on Western culture.

The practical possibilities of Islam’s regaining at least part of its medieval prestige have arisen primarily out of the financial and political clout of oil. Therefore Saudi Arabia has been the country taking most of the initiative toward an Islamic renascence. In a recent dispatch from Mecca, Associated Press correspondent Aly Mahmoud reported that the oil-rich Saudis are planning to spend billions of dollars to bring unity to Islam. “The Saudis,” he said, “want to recapture some of the glory of a seventh-century Islamic Arab empire that stretched from the Himalayas to Southern France at its apex.” The succeeding Ottoman Turkish Empire brought Islam to the gates of Vienna and sustained it as a major world force. Since then, however, Muslim fortunes have slowly declined, though there are still approximately 529 million Muslims in the world.

The recent turnabout is bound to be felt world-wide. Only last month the “Islamic Conference,” representing forty Muslim countries and the Palestine Liberation Organization, asked for observer status with the United Nations. Religious News Service quoted the five-year-old organization as saying that it would like to be represented in General Assembly debates as well as in the various U. N. specialized agencies. In the past, the General Assembly has given observer status to the European Economic Community and its Eastern European counterpart as well as to the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Observer status entitles these organizations to address the assembly and its various bodies without the right to vote.

The Saudis apparently see themselves as the logical leaders of Muslim resurgence, and without doubt they are now in a position to buy a lot of influence. Mahmoud suggests that they plan to do just that. King Faisal was quoted as saying shortly before he was assassinated that up to 30 per cent of Saudi Arabia’s $27.7 billion budget would go for foreign aid projects. Mahmoud states that the aid is linked to promises to uphold Muslim traditions.

Muslim missionary activity is reportedly intense in some parts of the world. Happily, Muslim ambitions do not appear to entail any military conquests. But it is one of the strange twists of history, geography, and economics that every time a Christian pays for a tank of gasoline he is helping to finance the growth and spread of Islam.

On Not Consulting Your Horoscope

Politics, comics, sports, food, finance, entertainment: these are the stock in trade of our daily newspapers. For most papers—as for many churchgoers—religion is at best a once-a-week thing. There is one conspicuous exception: astrology. Of some 1,500 daily papers in the United States, more than 1,200 carry horoscopes.

Recently 186 leading scientists signed a statement condemning astrology in no uncertain terms. It said in part:

Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.… We are especially disturbed by the continued unethical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers.… The time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans.

The statement was drafted by Bart Bok, former president of the American Astronomical Society. It was published by two major associations of humanists, and many if not most of the signers would reject belief not only in astrology but in all of the supernatural, including the God revealed through Jesus Christ. Their rejection of Christianity, however, could not be on the grounds of a contradiction between Christian doctrine and scientific discovery. Many other recognized scientists do accept Christian revelation. But one would be hard pressed to find any productive scientists who believe astrology. Moreover, Christian doctrine, while it does not contradict science, makes no claim to be provable by it. Astrology, by contrast, does claim to be scientific: “Both astrology and astronomy use the same fundamental data …,” says the director of New York’s Academy of Mystic Arts.

For the Bible-believer who is evaluating astrology, two biblical passages are definitive: “You are wearied with your many counsels; let them stand forth and save you, those who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons predict what shall befall you. Behold they are like stubble, the fire consumes them” (Isa. 47:13, 14). The second is especially significant because it comes from ancient Babylon, the source of Western astrology: “No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery which the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries …” (Dan. 2:27, 28).

Portugal: Up For Grabs

Portugal’s political chaos reminds us of what sometimes happens when parents who have been too strict and too protective suddenly let go of an adventurous child.

For a long time the Portuguese lived under a right-wing dictatorship that was aided in no small measure by the most conservative kind of Roman Catholicism. When they finally broke free of it, the leftists were ready to exploit the situation. Moderates who favor a middle-of-the-road democracy with a reasonably free press and at least some religious liberty have had a hard time getting political power, even though they seem to have the popular vote behind them. The fall of Vasco Goncalves has weakened the far-leftist bent.

Portugal is still a long way from stability. The handful of evangelicals there need encouragement to speak up on matters of justice and order from the biblical perspective.

Joy In Times Of Trial

James in his customary forthright way tells us to “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2, 3). In case we are inclined to modify these words as the utopian command of one who had not really experienced sorrow, let us remember that James was one of the principal leaders of the Christians in Jerusalem who continually faced persecution from those outside the Church (culminating in his own martyrdom in the sixties), as well as internal dissension associated with a Judaizing element. James surely knew what it meant to “meet various trials!”

But James had also learned that difficulties can produce steadfastness or patience, though the natural reaction is annoyance or bitterness. He never tells us to pretend that a trial is non-existent. Instead he wants us to recognize and rejoice that any problem can be the occasion for God to work in and through us in a way that he otherwise could not.

This is indeed a “testing of our faith”; it calls upon us to believe in the goodness of God, and to trust that he is not only willing but able to accomplish his purposes no matter what befalls us. Any difficulty, whether great or small, is an occasion for joy, but only when we remind ourselves of the nature of the God who loves us and wills only the best for use.

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