The much talked about population explosion is a more serious threat than most people think. The United States and the rest of the world are facing a cataclysm, the like of which mankind has never known. No nation can pass over the problem lightly. Its effects will be felt even in those lands where population remains stable or declines slightly.
In the United States much thought is being given to the matter of national priorities. On one side of the seesaw is the costly war in Viet Nam; on the other are the poor and the underprivileged, whose needs call for the expenditure of billions of dollars. But even when the day comes that the money now being spent in Viet Nam can be spent at home, efforts to solve the problem of the poor are doomed to defeat if our population increases by 100 million within the next thirty-five years, as it will if it continues to rise at the present rate of only 1 per cent annually.
The bigger picture is far worse. The annual global rate of population increase is slightly less than 2 per cent. This means that the world population will double in less than forty years. The small country of Costa Rica now has six births to every death. If the current rate of growth continues, its present 1.7 million population will be almost 75 million in a hundred years.
Population growth figures tell a story that leaves little room for optimism. In some nations the food supply has increased through technological advances. But this advantage will soon be wiped out by the presence of more mouths to feed, with many more on the way. In other nations the population increase has outpaced food production, so that these nations are worse off today than they were thirty years ago.
Some people have laid the blame at the door of the Roman Catholic Church, which has consistently opposed birth-control measures that would lead to population control. This tidy explanation is wide of the mark. The Population Reference Bureau has published statistics that show that the birth rate in European Catholic countries is not significantly higher than that in non-Catholic countries. The argument that the Catholic Church controls reproduction in European countries is a myth. However, it is true that Latin America, which is considered Roman Catholic (though it is not, except in name and by the claims of the church), has a population increase of more than 3 per cent a year. This means that these countries will double their numbers in less than thirty years. Why are the birth rates in Latin America so high?
The statistics tell us that where birth rates are high, literacy is low and the countries are underdeveloped. Where the birth rates are low, the literacy rate is high and the countries are highly developed. In other words, where ignorance and technological backwardness exist, the birth rate is high. So the world population is increasing most in those places where an increase is bound to produce the most hardship. Statistics also tell us that unless population growth is curbed, helping the underdeveloped countries materially will produce no enduring solution. Indeed, the developed countries can probably do no more for their underdeveloped neighbors than maintain the status quo—if that.
Whatever aid programs are adopted must include population control. If this essential element is missing there can be no lasting solution. Christians cannot opt for population control by abortion. We certainly can work for the prevention of conception. Since we know the gains in literacy and economic development serve to reduce the birth rate, it is important to set up crash programs with these goals in the underdeveloped countries as quickly as possible. Time will not wait for this task to be done at a leisurely pace. And it is the business of Christians to sense the signs of the time and involve themselves in seeking to correct a tragic situation.
What we have said about the rest of the world must be said about the United States as well. If our population continues to increase so that we have 100 million more mouths to feed in the year 2000 (we are expected to have a population of 240 million by 1980), it will be virtually impossible to maintain our current level of life. The general lot of our citizens, instead of improving, will get worse. With 100 million more people we will have more and larger cities with urban blight; we will have millions more automobiles, and roads so choked with traffic we will hardly be able to move; we will have the same supply of air, rivers, and natural resources, but they will be further corrupted and deteriorated. We are on the threshold of disaster.
God has given man a mandate to exercise control over nature. But man is not using that mandate properly. Christians especially have a great responsibility to work to prevent overpopulation. Before long there will be standing room only in our world unless something is done—now!
Man On The Moon
Tides rise and fall with it. Moonflowers open to it. Dogs bay at it. Lovers stroll under it. And now American astronauts, in mankind’s most daring adventure, are ready to set foot on it.
If Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin are finally able to descend their lunar module’s nine-rung ladder to the surface of the moon, the achievement should be welcomed by Christians as a blessing and an opportunity. Let believers breathe prayers of thanksgiving that God has enabled man so to coordinate his energies as to make possible this dramatic new exploration of divine handiwork. It is nothing short of a God-given miracle that assigns man the intelligence and will to make half-million-mile round trips to the moon.
Perhaps Apollo 11 will awaken Christians to begin to discover the spiritual opportunities opened up by space travel. We are already late. This is a main concern of space scientist Rodney W. Johnson, who calls for inter-disciplinary consultations on the meaning, possibilities, and problems of our “escape” from the earth (see the interview beginning on page 3). Vocational pietism is not enough. Especially in this crucial area, Christians have a responsibility to relate their faith to their work at a deeper level.
Philosophers, theologians, and Bible scholars have been strangely silent on the implications of space travel. They have felt there is not much to go on. But the time is here when we must search more deeply and determine to put the Christian faith on record with a thoughtful and creative attitude toward space exploits. To talk about the moon and planets symbolically and figuratively will not be enough. If Christians do not speak to the issues substantively, the world will take its cues from alien ideologies.
The intellectual risks of space travel are as acute as the physical hazards. But they need not scare us. Indeed, they ought to prod us to search more diligently for an authoritative rationale.
One fear is that the awesome wonders of space will encourage pantheism. Could we get so caught up admiring creation that nature itself becomes our object of worship rather than the God who is responsible for it? A man beholding the natural beauty of a woman can to some extent regard her as a creature of God deserving of admiration, and he can even be thankful for God’s gift of sex. But at some point this appreciation deteriorates into lust.
Another danger is that space travel will enhance the appeal of the subtle cult of scientism. Let no one minimize the technological sophistication necessary to put a man on the moon. This achievement is a resounding tribute both to individual ingenuity and to teamwork. What we must guard against is letting these tremendous scientific and technological breakthroughs become ends in themselves. Let us remember that what brings us progress can often be easily perverted into bringing us misery. A good example is the development of nuclear energy—it can be our fuel today and our devastation tomorrow.
There is also legitimate apprehension that the space program will be too militarily oriented. There have been good reasons for involving the armed forces in the space program to such a high degree. For one thing, the space venture requires a high degree of discipline, and the military is one of the few areas of human life where discipline is still a paramount consideration. But it will probably be better for the country and for the world if the role of the military in space decreases. Military men ought not to be disqualified from becoming astronauts, but civilians ought to be given greater opportunities for taking part. And women ought soon to be given the chance as well.
Perhaps the most regrettable part of our space program so far—and the most subtle danger—is the public indifference to it. We seem to have become blasé. Excitement over a space shot is quickly forgotten, and it is doubtful whether today NASA’s Frank Borman is better known than baseball’s Frank Howard. Perhaps the reason is our declining national pride. Or perhaps we don’t see anything in it for us. Either way it is an unhealthy sign.
Let us hope and pray for a successful lunar landing. May it help to dispel our gloom, and glorify our God. One reason why God made the moon was that it would be a “sign” (Gen. 1:14), a manifestation of himself. In other words, the moon is there in part to attest to God’s greatness, both to believers and to unbelievers. It bears testimony to the fact of a supreme intelligence behind all things that exist. It speaks eloquently of both the magnitude and the magnificence of the God who put it there.
Sensitivity Toward Suicide
Suicide is the escape route from earth taken by more than half a million people each year, according to the World Health Organization. Some societies used to glorify suicide, at least under certain circumstances. By contrast, Christians have traditionally considered suicide as one of the gravest of sins, and with good reason. When suicide is the result of deliberate and responsible choice, it is the physical counterpart to spiritual rebellion against God. It is a dramatic testimony of one’s rejection of the role assigned by God.
We cannot assume, however, that all suicides are the immediate product of responsible choice. Illnesses that affect the mind can be just as real as those that affect the body, and mental illness can lead to suicide. Christians are not exempt from sickness, physical or mental. But responsible stewardship requires that we take due precaution to maintain not only physical health but mental health as well.
There is no better way for the Christian to treat the minor disturbances to his emotional well-being than to follow the advice of the Apostle Paul: “Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6, 7). By failing to heed this instruction, many Christians have let anxieties overwhelm them so much that mental unbalance—sometimes culminating in suicide—has resulted. Suicide occurs often among persons living under pressure—external or self-imposed. Only by relieving the pressure as it occurs—through prayer—can we claim the promise of God’s peace.
As Christians we need to increase our sensitivity, not only to our own unacknowledged anxieties, but also to the possible presence around us of some who are on the usually long road that ends in self-destruction. Those who have barely begun to travel this road can be helped to see the importance of not letting anxieties build up. Those whose condition is much further advanced need help from someone experienced in dealing with potential suicides. The well-meaning words of someone who is rejoicing in life can only add to the depression of one in deep despair. Moreover, qualified help is needed for advanced cases because of the real possibility of a physical basis for the mental anxiety, such as brain tumors or chemical unbalance. Pastoral sensitivity to the needs of the relatives and close friends of one who has committed suicide is called for also. Often those who were close to a suicide feel not only the shame of their loved one’s deed but also personal guilt at not having done more to keep his life from seeming unbearable. Suicide is often the result of neglect of the command of God to bring our troubles to him; but God also assures us that he will forgive all the sins of those who have placed their trust in Christ.
Churches, Taxes, And Politics
Should churches be taxed? This sensitive issue is the center of an increasing number of hot debates and thoughtful discussions—both inside and outside the Church. The importance of the question is evidenced in the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of tax-exempt status for churches.
A slightly new twist entered the discussion in a recent bill introduced in the Pennsylvania state legislature. The bill calls for an elimination of the traditional tax exemption on land owned by religious organizations (buildings on the land would not be taxed).
Of special interest in this case are the reasons given in support of this bill by one of its sponsors. Representative Marvin Miller, a Republican, indicated that the tax bind at home and the changing role of the Church in society were major factors leading him to favor the plan. Miller said, “Historically the church has taken care of the old, the infirmed, and the poor. But now it has shed that responsibility to a great extent and lobbies for society and for government to maintain these roles.”
The legislator has voiced in a slightly different way a question many have been asking about the contemporary Church. Has it forgotten the purpose for which it exists and has it distorted the ministry given it by Christ himself? For churches to support the community voluntarily out of a sense of responsibility and fairness (as some churches do) is fine. And for the Church to carry out its ministry to society in other tangible ways is imperative. But something has gone wrong if the Church’s political orientation has become so dominant that it can legitimately be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status.
Leisure For Lazy Days
Don’t read this if you are loafing on a beach with an empty mind and idle hands. If you picked this up in order to appear percipient or to while away some time, you’d better turn the page. You won’t want to be reminded that “An idle brain is the devil’s workshop,” or that “He hath no leisure who useth it not” (George Herbert), or that “He is never less at leisure than when at leisure” (Cicero). You won’t like our thesis that leisure should be active, not passive.
The word itself means freedom from daily employment—not idleness. Leisure is free time that mechanization and labor-saving devices have produced—the time left after you’ve spent forty hours of the week working and twice as many more on life’s necessities, such as eating and sleeping. It’s the time that affluence spends on travel (tourists spend $40 billion a year in this country), color television, and weekend flying or skiing.
If you’ve read this far, you probably profess a lack of leisure. But no doubt you have some free time to spend usefully—and inexpensively. Housewives can oil their rusty typing and shorthand and help out in the church office. Men with extensive record collections (that they play on the stereos they built in their spare time) could establish music libraries for the church choir. Those who haunt bookstores would be the very ones to renovate church libraries. Artists could put a new face on church bulletins or advertisements or newsletters. And then ministers will have free time to take elderly church members for a drive in the country, or tutor underprivileged children, or relieve the parents of handicapped children for a few hours, or serve (cheerfully) on a PTA committee.
To those who are still with us we offer another leisure-time activity for this summer’s lazy days. Along with reading those books you’ve been saving all winter, why not choose some subjects for contemplation. But beware; if active leisure requires effort, contemplative leisure requires more. To think through a topic demands concentration and courage to go beyond the usual set of answers—and questions. This summer your fancy may turn to thoughts of the universe and man in it, of social problems and the Christian’s responsibility to them—even to thoughts of leisure and its implications for the Church. Or you might think about a flower:
… If I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
How Safe Are We?
One discouraging part of building the Safeguard anti-ballistic-missile system is that it may not work. It could well turn out to be ineffective against nuclear attacks on the United States. Some feel this is reason enough to forget about the whole ABM project.
Realistically speaking, however, the chief advantage of the ABM is not whether it will actually prevent enemy warheads from landing on our cities. And that being the case, we wish we could divert the ABM appropriations to more productive social ends. But this is not an alternative that is open to us unilaterally as long as the nation is threatened militarily.
Strange as it may seem, we need the Safeguard for diplomatic and political reasons more than for actual military use. Its potential is what counts. Its existence does not mean it would be employed, but it would give this country considerable leverage in the continuing East-West ideological confrontation. If we understand the other side with any degree of accuracy, they can be expected to hear quite clearly the message implicit in a decision to build the ABM. The same holds true in the question whether we should start producing the so-called MIRV—multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles.
What this country also needs to begin thinking about more seriously is how to deal with insurgency. Communists have an extremely potent weapon in guerrilla warfare carried on by a small infiltrating minority. It is a weapon they are more likely to use than nuclear warheads. It could happen here. Indeed, some feel it is already happening.
These are things that Christians wish were otherwise. But such is the battle between good and evil. Never are all the good and all the evil on opposite sides, but Scripture tells us that as long as both factors are present, conflict is inevitable. And given these circumstances, we are obliged to choose reluctantly.
Exposing A False Antithesis
The mission of the Church is a subject that has led to endless hours of discussion and has brought forth countless pages of printed material in recent years. But in spite of all the verbiage, there has been very little communication.
This was brought to our attention once again by a new book entitled The Schizophrenic Church, by Robert Lee and Russell Galloway (Westminster). A major theme of the book is what the authors call the agelong clash between two perspectives on the mission of the Church: “Is the church to comfort or to challenge, to be a conserving agent of stability or an initiator of change?” Such a simplistic analysis sets up a false antithesis and creates serious barriers to communication between those of varying viewpoints within the body of Christ.
In defining the mission of the Church, conservatives often assume that those who work toward social change must be liberals and therefore not concerned about the eternal souls of men. On the other hand, the liberal assumes that the person who places strong emphasis upon the salvation of the soul is virtually unconcerned for the needs of the whole man. Although some people are indeed guilty of these charges, usually such accusations only muddy the water.
We are not dealing here with an either/or matter; we are not required to line up either on the side of the soul or on the side of the body. True evangelism must involve the whole man. It is impossible to be genuinely concerned for a man’s soul and unconcerned about his physical needs. On the other hand, true concern for the needs of the whole man and for the problems of society must show itself in a burden for the salvation and transformation of the individual as he comes into personal contact with the living Christ.
If we are to deal constructively with the issues that divide the Church, we must do away with simplistic analyses (how many times have we heard of the two groups within the Church—those who resist any change and defend the status quo, and those who are willing to follow the Holy Spirit out into new pathways of service!) and face the deeper theological issues that are involved.
For example, we must face the fact that there are those who do not believe men will be eternally lost if they do not enter into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in this life. Salvation is thought of exclusively in terms of self-realization and relationships with fellow men in this life. Some see no need for a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as the one who paid the penalty for the sin of the individual by his substitutionary death on the cross. Some feel that the death of Christ on the cross provides salvation for all men quite apart from a response of faith; the mission of the Church therefore is to share with men the “Gospel,” i.e. the good news that they have been saved. The real work of the Church in the view of many modern theologians has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul of the individual. It is to change the structures of society through political, economic, or social pressure.
We believe that the Church is both to comfort and to challenge, that it is both a conserving agent of stability and an initiator of change. We cannot accept a division of the spiritual and material in the Church’s ministry. But we do part company with much modern theology on these deeper issues.
Men apart from Christ are lost. Though we must minister to physical needs and must work for changes in the social order, the mission of the Church is first and foremost a spiritual mission. Jesus himself was the example par excellence of ministry to the whole man. He never turned his back on physical need. But he emphasized that he had bread to offer that was far more important than that which he distributed to the five thousand. He offered living water that would spring up into everlasting life. Spiritual sight was more important than the healing of blinded eyes. In pointing to his ministry as the fulfillment of the Messianic promises, Jesus refers to his ministry to the poor—not that their status in life has been elevated but that the Gospel has been preached to them. Spiritual poverty is the worst kind of poverty. The man who is truly rich is the man who is in Christ, no matter what his station in life might be.
If in our contact with the world we should elevate the material and social status of men without leading them to a personal knowledge of Christ as Saviour, we have given them nothing and have completely failed in our mission. Indeed, we will most effectively meet the needs of our society by laboring for the transformation of men as they come to know Jesus Christ. We do not deal with an anonymous Christ who comes to men in the changing patterns of society but with Jesus of Nazareth, who died and rose again and who calls men to repent and to enter into a personal relationship with himself.
In our day we are confronted with new problems and new opportunities, and we must use every new method and technique and form available in meeting these problems and taking advantage of these opportunities. But in all this neither the message nor the mission of the Church has changed. Jesus said, “Go and preach the Gospel.”
Dead Faith And Hunger
Eleven middle- and upper-income families got up from their dinner tables hungry one Sunday in June, but not because they were on strict diets, or bankrupt, or fasting. Their stomachs, according to nine-year-old Eleanor Mondale, were “half empty and half full” because they were eating on welfare budgets that allot each person twenty-three cents per meal for food. For their $1.15 Sunday dinner, Minnesota Senator Walter F. Mondale and his wife and three children ate peanut butter and jelly on one slice of bread and drank powdered milk. California Representative Paul McClosky and his family substituted molasses for sugar and ate a mini-meal with second helpings served “the day after tomorrow.”
Not surprisingly, Mrs. Mondale expressed concern for her family’s health and frustration at bypassing the appealing packages on well-stocked supermarket shelves. Early in their experiment, she had to tape her cupboards closed to keep the family from raiding them. Eleanor Mondale and her brothers longed for hot dogs; even peanut butter and jelly had begun to lose their appeal.
For the Mondales and the McCloskys and the other families, the meager meals of grits, rice, or spaghetti were tolerable because they knew that after seven days they would untape their cupboards and stock up on their favorite foods. This Sunday they will not leave the dinner table hungry. But millions of other people will.
Eleven families now understand something about how an empty stomach feels and have dramatized for well-fed, rarely hungry Americans the mind-boggling estate of poverty. Yet for all the sympathies it aroused, the National Welfare Rights Committee experiment did not alleviate hunger. Perhaps it jogged compassion. Perhaps it will activate Christian faith. “Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in saying to them, ‘God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!’—if you don’t give them the necessities of life? This is how it is with faith: if it is alone and has no actions with it, then it is dead.”
Judgment At The Lord’S Table
God has given the Lord’s Supper to his Church as an ordinance or sacrament in which the death of Jesus Christ is remembered. This memorial feast is to be celebrated until Christ’s return. Christians differ as to the meaning of this ordinance, and the precise relation of the physical Jesus to the bread and wine remains a central problem in the ecumenical quest for external unity. But whatever the differences, this paschal feast continues to be celebrated by God’s people Sunday after Sunday, and they are blessed as they come in repentance and faith.
The Apostle Paul introduces a note that most of us overlook in connection with the Supper. To the Corinthian church he said: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” This is quite clear. It is possible for men to partake of the elements of the supper without any real appreciation of the meaning. Unbelievers do this. But Paul here seems to be speaking to believers. And the judgment he mentions is not eternal death. Rather, he says that the failure of some Christians to discern in the Supper what God intended has brought weakness, illness, and even death.
If it is true that unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper may bring in its wake weakness, illness, or death, can we not also say that proper participation will bring strength, health, and life? Surely in these days when men are bedeviled by problems of the world that appear insoluble, they have need of help. A news item from West Germany stated that one out of every five students is overtaken by inability to concentrate, has groundless fears, experiences great sexual tensions, and needs medical or psychiatric help. Ought this be the experience of the Christian?
The Lord’s Supper has both a vertical and a horizontal aspect: We come to stand alone before God, but we come to stand side by side with our fellow believers as a corporate body of saints. It is not only an experience of worship and cleansing. It is also an experience in which there is imparted to us a power we need, insight into the meaning of life, and a real sense of the presence of God Almighty. We come tired but we leave refreshed; we come as sinful sons of God but we leave cleansed; we come without power but we leave with the dew of heaven on our heads; we come empty but we leave filled. If we leave as we came we have not discerned his body, and we can go out worse than when we came in. But this need not be so. And we should be determined that it will not be so. We want the Communion cup to be a cup of blessing.
