Page 5860 – Christianity Today (2024)

Politics On The Ethical Periphery

President Nixon’s re-election amounts to a vote of confidence, in a general way, in his conduct of the affairs of state, both foreign and domestic. But it is not a very savory victory. Throughout the election campaign a moral cloud hung over the White House because of continuing revelations of dirty dealings. Even when allowance is made for exaggeration owing to the basically anti-Nixon motives of the accusers, the evidence is still very damaging. There seems little doubt that, whether Nixon knew it or not, a number of his key supporters engaged in a brazen program of political espionage and in unfair attempts to interfere with the nominating and election processes. There is also reason to think that the wheat deal with the Soviet Union brought inordinately large profits to certain privileged insiders.

The failure of the White House to counter the charges in any substantial way serves to underscore the impression that much was amiss. We feel that the American people in general do not condone such goings-on and that their return of Nixon to office for a second term should not be so interpreted.

It is now the President’s obligation to pursue with vigor and candor a full investigation of the alleged misdeeds. If the charges are found to be true, those judged responsible should be adequately punished. If the allegations turn out to have little or no basis in fact, then the slanderers should be prosecuted. One way or another, Washington must clean house.

Dealing With The Reds

Another major milestone on the road to East-West detente was reached in Germany this month. Negotiation of a treaty by East and West Germany cannot fail to ease Cold War tensions, at least for the time being.

The prospects of a settlement of the war in Southeast Asia have also been encouraging. And in Korea, though martial law was imposed in the South last month, the two sides have been conferring, and there is some hope that serious negotiations can be held toward unification.

The Middle East is the big remaining trouble spot. The possibility of any early breakthrough there seems dim. Our optimism about a peaceful future needs to be tempered by the understanding of how deep the differences are between Jews and Arabs.

We also need to keep in mind that though Communist strategy may be changing, Communist ideology is not. Considering conditions today, however, the lessening of tensions will, we hope, enable the West to keep the expansionist efforts of Moscow and Peking in check better than the old brinkmanship.

Between Winter And Christmas

C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, his beautiful book for children—and all adults who love the joy of a good story—explores winter as a symbol of sin and evil. The wicked White Witch has turned the land of Narnia into eternal winter—“always winter, but it never gets to Christmas,” remarks protagonist Lucy. As long as the White Witch reigns, the frozen land looks pure but is corrupt. When her evil spell begins to die, winter ends. Father Christmas appears, the air warms, the snow melts, and, most significant of all, the sound of running water is heard again. Edmund, who sells his loyalty to the White Witch for some “Turkish Delight,” is the first to notice the green of a pine branch, as the snow slides from it and, symbolically, from his heart.

Many of us are secretly—and perhaps, like Edmund, unthinkingly—selling our loyalty for magical candy that doesn’t satisfy but rather sickens even while the desire for it increases. Or we may hide destructive pride beneath the face of purity and beauty, as does the White Witch: “Her face was white—not merely pale, but white like snow or paper or icing sugar.… It was a beautiful face in other respects, but proud and cold and stern.” We are too often content to live in a winter that never reaches Christmas. As we enter this advent season, let us search our lives to see if we are trading Christ’s melting love for the ice of our own private, cherished sins.

Guidelines For Pastors’ Salaries

Does the average minister earn enough? We say no. Marjoe’s allegations notwithstanding, many clergymen are forced to scrimp year after year. The senior minister of one of North America’s most prominent churches went fourteen years (during the post-war inflationary spiral) without a single salary increase.

Now clergymen may be feeling an extra pinch. Church boards that set ministerial salaries may feel that little or no increase should be given in view of the wage-price clamps in the United States.

This ought not to be. To begin with, anyone who works for a firm or group with sixty or fewer employees is exempt from the 5.5 per cent annual salary increase ceiling. Moreover, Pay Board regulations specifically allow for hikes of more than 5.5 per cent when they include one or more of these: catch-up increase, cost-of-living allowance, merit increase. Longevity increases are allowed on top of these, provided they follow plans or established practices existing before November 14, 1971.

For any pastor to whom these factors are applicable, it is hard to see why for 1973 he ought to be getting any less than a 10 per cent wage increase.

How To Deal With Hijackers

The release of the three captured Arab terrorists of Munich Olympic infamy demonstrates again the need for effective international action to combat air piracy. It also brings in focus a profound difference over government policy. The captured Arabs were freed because a Lufthansa plane had been hijacked to Yugoslavia, then Libya, by other Arabs who threatened to destroy the plane and its crew and passengers unless their demands were met. Israel refused to release imprisoned terrorists in exchange for its Olympic team, believing that to capitulate to such demands encourages further violence. Germany was unwilling to risk the loss of its crew and passengers. One’s judgment on these matters is affected by whether one is viewing the demands abstractly or is himself a hostage or a friend of one.

Germany has given in to terrorists before. In September, 1970, it freed three Arab prisoners because of a plane hijacked to a remote Jordanian landing strip. Last February it paid five million dollars to “ransom” a German plane that had been hijacked to Aden. The Arabs had every reason to expect the Germans to capitulate again. The German policy generally saves lives in the short run. Israel contends that in the long run such policy encourages terrorism and greater loss of life.

Christians are repeatedly exhorted in Scripture to make decisions with the long-range view in mind. We do not live simply for this moment but for eternity. Christians have repeatedly given up their funds, their health, and even their temporal lives because they evaluate matters not for the present only but for the future. We cannot automatically transfer this ethic to resolve international incidents, but certainly we can encourage governments to weigh all the factors, not just the ones immediately at hand, in coming to their decisions.

Revolutionizing The Schools

Under the leadership of the late Konrad Adenauer and his minister of economics Ludwig Erhard, West Germany gave the postwar world a spectacular exhibition of what a free-enterprise economy could do. One understandable by-product of West Germany’s “economic miracle” has been an upsurge of materialism and hedonism, similar to that in the United States. A more puzzling phenomenon is the fact that while the free-enterprise, capitalistic economy flourishes, the academy—and not merely the universities, but especially the secondary and even the primary schools—is being systematically programmed to produce Marxist revolutionaries.

Exactly why or how this can be happening seems to defy comprehension, but that it is happening all across the board in West German education seems undeniable. Reports from German correspondents, including not only a prominent economic conservative but also long-standing members of the Social Democratic party, fully documented by Dr. Kuno Barth in Die Revolutionisierung der Schüler (1969), make it clear that it is happening. Although West German working classes have systematically rejected the Marxist experiment with its by now familiar accompanying features, dictatorship and police terror, secondary-school pupils are being propagandized—and won—on behalf of a philosophy that exalts rather than minimizes the bloody, violent, and tyrannical aspects of revolutionary Marxism. Very little is being done, officially or privately, to counteract this proselytizing, and except for some intrepid young Christians, few in the schools venture to find fault with it or to suggest an alternative.

America has often aped Germany and things German in the past. Therefore these developments are of concern to us not because of what they could mean for the Germans but of what they may also mean for us.

On Fountains

Fountains are making a comeback in North America. They are often seen now not only in parks and public squares but in front of new office buildings. More and more are being included in the landscape designs that grace private homes. Small, portable fountains are even beginning to be used inside, not only for aesthetic effect but for the practical purpose of moistening the dry air found in houses and other buildings these days. Fountains seem to have eternal eye appeal, and the trickle and splash of water is always pleasing to the ear.

Yet it is still very rare to see a fountain inside a church or on its grounds, even when great attention has been paid to decoration and symbolism and the ordinance of baptism. It was different in early Christian times. Fountains were a standard fixture in the atrium of the basilica. Courtyard fountains of Roman residences often became baptistries.

Natural fountains (springs) are mentioned repeatedly in Scripture. They are assigned the significant role of expressing the life-giving power of God. Springs have always been essential in the Holy Land, not just for refreshment but for life itself. The location of many a community in the Near East has been determined by the presence of a spring; no other factor is more important.

The parallel is obvious, for God is our sustainer. And the analogy is even more interesting in that a fountain contains an enduring, changeless substance that manifests itself in ever-fresh ways. That’s the way it is (or at least should be) with Christian faith. The good news never changes, yet is always timely. The basis upon which we trust God stays the same; yet as we obey him and walk in his will we have the joy of constantly new experiences. Fountains can well be used in churches and Christian homes to signify the blend of stability and variety that God supplies to those who believe in him.

Ideas, whether true or false, are weapons. And for more than half a century the West has been infiltrated by the ideas of Marx and Lenin. Lenin in his work “What Is to Be Done?” said that the society of his day was worthless. And he went on to assert, “We must make it our business to stimulate in the minds of those who are dissatisfied only with [particular] … conditions the idea that the whole political system is worthless.”

This idea did not originate with either Marx or Lenin. Rather, it came from the “Utopian Socialists” whom they despised, among whom were many Christians and whose descendants today include many clergymen and religious leaders. Marx acknowledged that the literature of Utopian Socialists “contained most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class”—an attack on “every principle of existing society.” The chief difference between Marxism and Utopianism lay not in analysis of the problem but in method of treating it. The Utopians wanted to reform and improve the system, whereas the Marxists wanted to destroy it. Both prepared for a frontal attack on capitalism, the Utopians with ballots and the Marxists with bullets.

Lenin damned capitalism for its “rottenness, mendacity, and hypocrisy,” and for housing “a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false.” The solution, he said, “cannot be the alteration of private property, but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the foundation of a new one.” And he said: “The only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course.” “Communists should know that at all events the future belongs to them.”

These ideas inherent in both Marxism and Utopian Socialism have become controlling principles for increasing numbers of Westerners. But the Marxist goal of the destruction of present-day society has won out over the Utopian idea of reformation. Communists have been successful in spreading this view throughout the world. This ideological disease could not have spread like this had the victims not been open to infection because of declining commitment to Christian truth and the prevalence of greed and selfishness.

Reinhold Niebuhr, a socialist and a founder of Americans for Democratic Action, and certainly no apologete for capitalism, had a word to say about the threat of Communism over against democracy:

That evil [Communism] is a pretentious scheme of world salvation, a secularized religious apocalypse, which foolishly divides the world between good and evil classes and nations, predicts the final triumph of the hosts of justice against those of injustice, and destines one class, the “proletariat,” to become the masters of the whole historic process, by taking “the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.” If this absurd religious apocalypse should ever be implemented on a large scale, and should master the destinies of all the nations, mankind would face not only totalitarian government, but a dangerous effort to press all the vitalities and forces, the hopes and aspirations of many nations, the cultural and ethical aspirations of sensitive individuals into the restrictive and confining pattern of its scheme of world salvation. The Communist danger is, in short, much more grievous and perilous than we assume it to be if we define it merely as despotism.… Communist dictatorship … is but the product and instrument of a religio-political dogmatic system with a fantastic ambition to master all the variegated processes of history and press all its themes into one mold, and which promises redemption from all social evil [© by The Columbia Forum].

Two hundred years ago Alexander Tytler discussed democracy in a book devoted to the Athenian republic. He said that because of the eventual greed of citizens, no democracy could survive:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The sickness in the soul of countries like the United States and Britain is primarily due to two conditions: the loss of national vitality and the propagation of an apostate world view. The loss of national vitality in a civilization built on the Judeo-Christian foundation is a religious problem. Had the structure been firmly established on that foundation, it could have kept Marxism out. A spiritual awakening and a turn to Judeo-Christian principles is the sole hope left to the Western world.

Marxism and Utopianism have been indigenized, and the attack both on democracy and the economic structures is even more deadly from within than from without. Of those within who are working to pull down the system it may be said, “With his mouth each speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him” (Jer. 9:8).

The great creeds of the early Church and the confessions of faith of Reformation Protestantism were invariably drawn up to answer questions and reject errors that threatened the Church at the time. For this reason no creed or confession is altogether comprehensive—although later Protestant ones, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, are more complete than the creeds of the early Church.

By comparing a later creed or confession to its predecessors, one can often recognize the outline of doctrinal problems that afflicted the Church during the interval between them. Thus while the second-century Old Roman Creed (very close to what we call the Apostles’ Creed) says, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,” the Nicene Creed (325, expanded 381) puts it this way: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.” In the intervening years, Christians had to take a stand against the Gnostics and Marcionites, who taught that the visible world was made by a kind of lesser divinity called the demiurge, while God himself created only the invisible world of spirits. Thus the Nicene Creed adds the qualifying expressions “one” and “of all things visible and invisible.”

When a confession is written for our own time, one would expect it to clarify some of the themes that are most hotly contested today—certainly to speak clearly of the Person and Work of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the doctrine of God itself. Therefore it is disappointing that the “Tentative Draft, Proposed New Confession of Faith” of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, instead of proclaiming where Southern Presbyterians take their stand on the vital doctrines under attack, shies away from clear definitions and gives us chiefly pious admonitions with which few men of good will could be expected to disagree. For this reason, even though the draft, properly interpreted, may not confess anything that is clearly false, it falls lamentably short of the purpose of a confession, which is to make it clear where Christians stand in the battle. Here are some examples:

Chapter I, “God,” makes no reference to the central truth of Christian theology, the Holy Trinity. It mentions the Son only as “Jesus of Nazareth,” and speaks vaguely of “his [i.e., God’s] Spirit.” It contains nothing that would have embarrassed an early modalist (one who believed that the persons of the Trinity were only temporary “modes” of God’s activity), a nineteenth-century Unitarian, or a modern liberal. Chapter II, “God and His People,” talks in vague terms of estrangement and alienation and says nothing about a real, historic fall of man in space and time. Of course any suggestion of a historic fall is anathema to natural man, but the doctrine of the Fall is the key to the Christian understanding of man as he is today.

Chapter IV, “God in Christ,” speaks ambiguously of Jesus’ coming in a way that does not contradict the doctrines of his Virgin Birth, but also does not affirm it. Because the Virgin Birth is often one of the first doctrines to be discarded by falling-away Christians, this evasiveness seems out of place in a contemporary “confession.” The humanity of Christ is stressed, but his divinity is only implied, e.g., “God was uniquely his Father, and he was uniquely God’s Son.” This would allow of an Arian or adoptionist Christology.

How much clearer are the Words of the Creed of Chalcedon (451): “Our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man; … of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin.” The Creed of Chalcedon requires some effort on the part of an uninitiated reader to understand it, but it rewards his effort because it says something clear and unambiguous, which is what a confession is supposed to do.

The Tentative Draft is not a confession at all, in the historic Christian sense of the word. It is a kind of lowest-common-denominator document, far less specific than even the “Confession of 1967” of the United Presbyterian Church, and constitutes a mandate for confusion far more than a confession of faith.

Leave My Birthday Alone!

The other day in pursuing one of the many inconsequential errands that mark my peregrination through life, I found myself in the entrails of a large downtown office building.

I passed an open door. Voices were coming from inside, and I looked in and saw a small office with a single desk surrounded by bookcases. A dignified-looking woman behind the desk was explaining a legal-looking paper to a woman in front of the desk.

I glanced at the door to discover the nature of this apparently small business and was immediately stopped. The curious legend on the door read: SHARE-YOUR-BIRTHDAY FOUNDATION.

Share my birthday? I thought. Not on your life!

If I can’t have the exclusive use of my own birthday, what’s left? I’m already sharing most holidays and anniversaries with someone. Independence Day and Thanksgiving I share with the rest of America. I share Christmas with a large part of the Western world.

Father’s Day I share with heaven only knows how many thousands of fathers.

Our wedding anniversary I share with my wife—or, to put it more precisely, her wedding anniversary my wife shares with me.

And increasingly, I’m having to share National Tree Frog Day (April 21, in case it has escaped your attention).

So it seems a little unreasonable to ask that I share my birthday.

Picture, if you will, a modest birthday cake inscribed “Happy Birthday Eutychus V,” surrounded by a throng of strangers.

Who knows—the occasion might grow into a national holiday. I can see it now. Bunting decorates each lamp post on the street, and a two-hundred-foot banner proclaims “Eutychus V’s Birthday.” Down the street moves a parade led by sixty shapely baton-twirlers in tights. Following them are bands in blue and maroon and gold with instruments glittering in the sun. Interspersed with the bands are floats commemorating some of the exciting events of my life. Here comes a float picturing my humble beginnings in the maternity ward of St. Mary’s Hospital. And here’s one commemorating my two years in the third grade.

And there I am, sitting alone at home, watching it all on television while my wife shops the special Eutychus Birthday Sales.

Share my birthday indeed!

Jesus once said, “You must be born again.” Now that’s a birthday worth sharing. As a matter of fact, it’s a birthday that improves with sharing.

EUTYCHUS V

MORE ON MISSOURI

Thanks for the news coverage of doctrinal controversy at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis (“Charges Lodged: Seminary on the Spot,” Sept. 29). And a special vote of thanks for the editorial sympathetic to Dr. J. A. O. Preus’s efforts to halt the withering of biblical authority within that institution (“Missouri: Peace in Our Time?,” Sept. 29).

After 125 years of denominational solidarity and common confession of faith, Missouri Synod Lutherans can only be saddened by the recent inroads of liberalism and resulting disunity. But God works in mysterious ways. While being blessed with a faithfulness to the Scriptures, the denomination has tended to be isolationist and unsympathetic to the needs of evangelical Christians in other denominations. Hopefully as Missouri discovers enemies from within it may also discover new friends without. Missouri has long described its theology in terms of the formal and material principles, namely, that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the only norm for Christian doctrine, and that the central core and essence of that Christian doctrine is justification by faith alone, the article by which the church stands or falls, or in other words, the gospel message of salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Missouri struggles with its own problems it may come to find a new appreciation for other Christians who are also sincerely committed to these basic principles. I am personally grateful that your magazine has encouraged and supported the true Christian faith which is Christ-centered and biblically revealed. Only when Christians meet on this common ground will they be able to discover and grow in true church fellowship and unity.

Faith Lutheran Church

G. RENTZ

Courtenay, British Columbia

Regarding the news item “A ‘Garbage’ Problem?” (Oct. 13), may I complain about the words of Dr. Tietjen—“garbage in, garbage out”? We have known for a long time that a good housecleaning needed to be done, but until Dr. Preus was elected president of Missouri Synod, we lacked the leadership that was necessary for such action.

HELEN I. SCHMELING

Fort Wayne, Ind.

Please permit me to add a few words of explanation to [Miss Forbes’s] story that resulted from our recent enjoyable chat (News, “Interview With Preus,” Oct. 27). I certainly do not want to imply that “the suggestion of Oswald Hoffmann for president is ridiculous.” The method—not the individual—is ridiculous in the way in which a group of kingmakers had gotten together, without following the procedures outlined in the bylaws of Synod, while Dr. Hoffmann was out of the country. I’m sure Dr. Hoffmann did not give his approval to this method. We have a proper method for election of officers that both I and Dr. Hoffmann respect.

One other comment concerning my response to [her] question on grass-roots support. Somehow the numbers became reversed—about 99 per cent of the laity and 70 per cent of the clergy favor remaining faithful to the doctrines cherished by our Synod for 125 years.

J. A. O. PREUS

President

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

St. Louis, Mo.

SILENT DISSENSION

Your news article on the convention of the American Lutheran Church gave the impression that there was “No Reason to Kick” (Oct. 27). I find a growing number of ALC people are becoming disturbed at the direction the ALC is taking. As one lady remarked, “It sounded more like a political convention than a church convention.” From the news releases it sounded like spiritual matters were suppressed at the convention. Maybe little complaint was heard at the convention, but it is different among some ALC people.

RICHARD GERSKVAL

Redeemer Lutheran Church

Menahga, Minn.

A LARGER STRUCTURE

A news item (Religion in Transit, Sept. 29) indicates that Bob Jones University is constructing a 7,000-seat auditorium, “believed to be the largest structure in the United States used for non-arena purposes.” You may be interested to learn that the Tabernacle erected in 1867 in Salt Lake City by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and used exclusively for “non-arena purposes,” has a seating capacity of over 8,000. This building has been in constant use since its erection over a century ago.

I enjoy reading CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and look forward to each issue.

ROBERT J. MATTHEWS

Brigham Young University

Provo, Utah

INADEQUATE SEX APPEAL?

That 40 per cent of the respondents to Eutychus V’s question “What would I do if I were editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY” were women may be surprising. That you would attribute this result to your “sex appeal” is shocking (“2,000 Years Behind Times,” Aug. 25). Sex appeal does not adequately account for the magnitude of the women’s response to your question. A much more likely explanation may be the composition of your magazine’s readership.

Your question was, I assume, asked in all seriousness. To dismiss 40 per cent of the responses as being motivated by “sex appeal” is an insult to the women who wrote them. These women responded to a thought-provoking question with their intellects, not their alleged susceptibility to your “sex appeal.” Perhaps even “a magazine that’s trying to be 2,000 years behind the times” should acknowledge that women possess intellects as well as sexual feelings.

DAVID GRAHAM WATT

Barrigada, Guam

EDITORIAL INFLUENCE?

I wish to take exception to what appears to me the editor’s using CHRISTIANITY TODAY for the purpose of influencing its readers to vote for Mr. Nixon (Editor’s Note, Oct. 27). To be sure, he urged all of us readers to vote, but by his asserting “I will cast a vote for Mr. Nixon” he has stepped beyond the bounds of propriety dictated by the nature of this magazine. It seems to me that discretion would have led Dr. Lindsell to have omitted making public via CHRISTIANITY TODAY his choice. On the other hand, I would hope that he has contributed time and money to reelecting his candidate as a private citizen. Have not evangelicals long criticized the NCC for its obvious political efforts in the past?

ROBERT H. COUNTESS

Assistant Professor of Philosophy

Tennessee State University

Nashville, Tenn.

INFIELD PLAY

I write in connection with the report of the recent meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Utrecht (“WCC Central Committee: Fellowship Adrift,” Sept. 15). Specifically, I refer to the unfortunate statement which reads as follows: “The Dutch Council of Churches and other member groups have left the fold.” If this particular passage is meant to imply that the Dutch Council of Churches has left the WCC, then this statement is quite incorrect.…

As far as the admittedly controversial WCC program to combat racism is concerned, this has been widely and sometimes vehemently discussed here in the Netherlands. But no church has withdrawn either from the Dutch Council of Churches or from the WCC on that or any other account; the same goes also for the Dutch Council of Churches itself.

Though it is quite true that the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland declined as a body to participate officially in the controversial anti-racism program of the WCC, it is also true that a strong action group within these churches has indeed already made a substantial contribution towards it. It is also widely known in the Netherlands—though not so widely outside it—that Her Majesty Queen Juliana, Queen of the Netherlands, has made a personal contribution to the WCC anti-racism program.

Utrecht, Holland

PETER STAPLES

FROM SIX TO THIRTY-SIX

If I do not always read your magazine with enthusiasm, I seldom read it with the disgust occasioned by your editorial “On Leaving It to Hanoi” (Oct. 13). You conjure up a string of half-truths and downright untruths that serve only to confuse the clear moral choice between the two presidential candidates on the issue of Viet Nam, ignoring completely the immorality of our present position.

You say, “There is no reason why an agreement in Viet Nam could not have been reached long ago were it not for Hanoi’s intransigence,” ignoring the fact that it was the United States that blocked free elections in Viet Nam in 1954 because President Eisenhower believed that Ho Chi Minh would win at least 80 per cent of the popular vote.… You say, “There is no evidence to support the contention that unilateral withdrawal would bring home the POWs,” ignoring the fact that the French POWs were returned within ninety days of France’s unilateral withdrawal and that Hanoi has offered a pro rata release based on the percentage of troops withdrawn. You say that President Nixon “advocates complete withdrawal as soon as Saigon can defend itself,” ignoring that Nixon has never pledged complete withdrawal from Southeast Asia, and that we are not presently defending “Saigon” but a corrupt military dictatorship that deals in heroin, prison for the opposition-party candidates, and the closing of newspapers that do not echo the government line. You say, “Neither position is free from moral ambiguity,” ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no ambiguity about the hundreds of lives our bombs blot out each week.… You claim to want to bring theology into subjection to the Word. Do you not see the hypocrisy of claiming to follow the Jesus of the Word on page six and rationalizing our bombings on page thirty-six?

Tallahassee, Fla.

DAVID L. BARR

Talking With God

The Problem With Prayer Is …, by David Hubbard (Tyndale, 1972, 91 pp., $.95 pb), is reviewed by Donald Tinder, book editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The busy president of Fuller Seminary offers a helpful and inexpensive book for those who want some guidance on a truly biblical perspective on prayer. Hubbard reminds us that “prayer is not only a specific activity which we engage in regularly; it is an attitude which we reflect continually.” He refers to the well-known spiritual “Every time I feel the Spirit moving in my heart I pray,” and asks, “Can we afford to relegate prayer to the control of our feelings?” Often we put off praying because we don’t “feel” like it, but “the Bible tells us that prayer should be a carefully developed habit as well as a spontaneous expression.”

One of our biggest problems is not knowing just what to say when we do talk to God. “Almost unconsciously we feel that we should tell God what he wants to hear, not what we really think.” Among the other problems Hubbard talks about are such fundamental questions as, Why pray at all? How does prayer work? How can I pray for my enemies?

The Bible says a lot about prayer, and it gives us many examples of prayer, but not with the intention of making us feel guilty or uncomfortable. Even as God gave us breathing for our physical sustenance, so he grants us prayer for our spiritual sustenance—and because he likes the fellowship with us himself, strange as it may seem. Reflecting on this book will help keep us from making of prayer something so difficult that only super-spiritual Christians with a lot of time on their hands can practice it comfortably.

What Kind of Revolution?

The Wilderness Revolt: A New View of the Life and Death of Jesus Based on the Ideas and Notes of the Late Bishop James A. Pike, by Diane Kennedy Pike and R. Scott Kennedy (Doubleday, 1972, 385 pp., $7.95), The Roman Siege of Jerusalem, by Rupert Furneaux (McKay, 1972, 274 pp., $6.95), and Jesus and the Politics of Violence, by George R. Edwards (Harper & Row, 1972, 168 pp., $5.95), are reviewed by John H. White, dean of religious services and assistant professor of Bible, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.

Violence and proposals for violent revolution have become a mark of our time. Established powers have a ready response to violent revolution—the response of armed force. To the dismal sequence of violence and counter violence there seems to be no end. The Christian must ask: Was Jesus a violent revolutionary, a non-violent pacifist, or something else?

Here are three books that try to discover whether Jesus was a revolutionary, and if so what kind. Each is directly or indirectly concerned with the Brandon-Eisler thesis that Jesus complied with the political violence against Rome in first-century Palestine, and that the gospel record is, except for some remnants, a picture of Jesus depoliticized in order to pacify the Roman government.

The Wilderness Revolt and The Roman Siege of Jerusalem support the Brandon-Eisler thesis and seek to update it. The Wilderness Revolt is a posthumous publication of ideas of Bishop James A. Pike. Each chapter begins with a section entitled “In the Words of James A. Pike”; after the brief quotation comes the authors’ expansion of it with what is often a rather disorganized and inconclusive documentation.

For example: “Everything Jesus did and said would have been understood by him and by his disciples and Jewish masses in the context of Apocalyptic Messianism.” Jesus was willing to be the Messianic king who would lead the Jews against Rome, say the authors, but he would use violence only if there were a sign from God. He was a blend of Zealot and apocalyptist, a continuation of the freedom fighters in the Qumran tradition. In this interpretation, all the traditional events of Jesus’ ministry become political demonstrations. So the book concludes, “The disciples were in error about Jesus’ life but it can still have profound meaning for us today if properly understood.” Parapsychological phenomena may be the means both of discovering and of verifying that meaning.

What these authors give us is a complete reconstruction of the life of Jesus drawn from the flimsy evidence of the political situation of his day.

In A.D. 66 the Jews rebelled against their Roman rulers. In The Roman Seige of Jerusalem Rupert Furneaux offers a good perspective on the Judaism of that time. He specializes in the interpretation of military history, and in this book he captures something of the intrigue of the plots and betrayals that shaped those Palestinian events.

Furneaux, too, sets forth Jesus Christ as a Jewish nationalist. He says that Paul in his reconstruction reworked him into a deity. “To understand his career, we need to reject the emotional appeal of the Gospel story and to clear up the misunderstanding about the role of the Messiah.” The gospel writers were disguising a fact unpalatable to their readers, that the founder of their religion was put to death for political sedition. These authors either intentionally misrepresented or were ignorant of Jewish nationalistic hopes. Furneaux feels there is a Christian determination to misinterpret the Jewish concept that the Messiah was nothing more than an earthly champion filled with divine spirit.

Jesus and the Politics of Violence stands in contrast to these two books. It is an attempt to face issues of critical New Testament scholarship and contemporary politics. The author points out carefully and accurately that S. G. F. Brandon (Jesus and the Zealots) went through the Gospels seeking to fit Jesus into the mold of a militant Jewish nationalist.

Two chapters contain Edwards’s analysis of Mark’s Gospel. Brandon and others see the Book of Mark as a tendentious attempt to promote “rapprochement between Christianity and Rome,” explains Edwards, a revision of the previous picture of Jesus as a political revolutionary. In a chapter entitled “Mark Without Politics” Edwards attempts to correct that view by setting forth, with some reservations, William Wrede’s view of the secret messiah. He seeks to show that Mark’s literary purpose is not political apology but de-ethnicizing and depoliticizing the early Church’s understanding of the Messiah: “In an age when men assign political significance to all phenomena one must be careful in addressing political questions to a biblical literature which is ‘beyond politics.’”

It is regrettable, however, that in his analysis Edwards adopts the higher-critical view of the biblical evidence held by the writers whom he criticizes. Over and over he differentiates between Jesus’ self-image and the early Church’s view of him. He gives a moving argument for selective conscientious objection, but one wonders how that position springs out of the biblical data. Indeed, Edwards says that its defense comes from contextual ethics.

The paradigm for us as men is the pacific Christ. Yet Edwards, while trying to make it clear that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are the same, gives away the whole foundation of his argument when he says that Christ “stands on the boundary between faith and history.… If, furthermore, it could be shown that no such model man as the Gospels exhibit actually existed, then it would be forthwith necessary for the moral sanity of the world to create one.”

To those who take the words of Jesus at face value, The Roman Siege of Jerusalem and The Wilderness Revolt seem extremely radical. The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount seems plain enough: the only consistently Christian way is the way of nonviolence. Yet some modern scholars maintain that the picture of the pacific Jesus is unhistorical, that it is a perversion of an earlier, more authentic portrayal of Jesus as a political insurgent against Roman oppression. There are, we are told, surviving fragments of this earlier picture, and they are clues to the real historical Jesus.

Accurate critiques have been given of this approach, and Edwards’s book adds to that number. Some readers will also be interested in the work of Martin Hengel and two books by Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament and Jesus and the Revolutionaries.

In this reviewer’s judgment, the corrective to such exegetical aberrations is to have a correct approach to the Scriptures. They are primarily the history of redemption, and Jesus Christ must be seen in the total context of that redemption as the Second Adam. In the temptation, for example, he acts as the federal head of his people and rejects the role of a militant messiah.

Evangelicals, however, have been guilty of underestimating the influence of messianic movements on the doctrine and life of the early Christian Church. The Church has been influenced by opposing fads: on the one hand, the tendency of the political left to view Jesus as a proponent of revolution, and on the other, the tendency to think that Jesus baptizes the American way of life with his blessing. May such books as these call evangelicals to repent and to be gripped by the counter-cultural nature of Christianity. If we returned to Jesus, we would have a revolution indeed—a revolution based on the radical principles of Scripture.

Biblical Vision For ‘Faith Evangelical’

Brethren, Hang Loose, by Robert Girard (Zondervan, 1972, 220 pp., $4.95, $1.95 pb), and The Church in God’s Program, by Robert Saucy (Moody, 1972, 254 pp., $5.95), are reviewed by Marlin Jeschke, chairman, Division of Bible, Religion, and Philosophy, Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana.

The doctrine of the Church has fallen on hard times in recent years. Maybe euphoria is too strong a word, but certainly a mood of confidence and optimism marked the church world in the fifties and early sixties. It was the day of well-publicized ecumenical gatherings and a spate of books on the doctrine of the Church (e.g., Brown, Jenkins, Miller, Nelson, Newbigin, Welch).

But now have come falling attendance, flagging financial support, ecumencial uncertainty, and general perplexity about what the Church is and how it can become or remain relevant in our ongoing modem world. And just when the going has gotten tough, book publishing in general has deserted the field and followed the fads to new areas such as situation ethics and women’s liberation.

In the face of this it is good to see some new books about the church, and on both sides of the subject needing treatment, systematic and practical theology. Saucy tries to set forth the biblical model of the church, and Girard seeks to make the biblical vision come alive in a local congregation.

In my opinion, The Church in God’s Program does not quite strike fire. With its subtitles and clear organization, it seems intended as a text on the doctrine of the Church for courses in theology. But its textbook nature is not the problem. Nor is the content (though most of what is in the first three chapters on the nature of the Church has already been done in, e.g., Minear). On the whole Saucy comes to sane conclusions about the organization of the Church, its ministry, and the ordinances.

The problem seems to be a pedestrian systematic format imposed upon biblical materials. Heavily lacing his text with references, Saucy obviously tries to let the biblical model of the Church shine forth; but the organization of the book reflects Protestant thought of the 1800s, and this tends to get in the way of the biblical model. If Saucy wants to be biblical, he would do much better to let the organization of his subject emerge from the biblical materials themselves rather than cite scriptural texts to support a systematic theology coming from elsewhere.

This is where Robert Girard’s book comes in for comment—and I am glad I read these together. For when I had finished with Saucy’s book I got the feeling that, if it didn’t actually endorse the typical Faith Evangelical Church of Suburbia, it certainly spoke no prophetic word to it. And yet Faith Evangelical Church of Suburbia is exactly what Girard claims he for too long took as his ideal only to find it wanting. “The Glorious Evangelical Status Quo,” he calls it, which he had to abandon in order to discover how God wanted to work in the world.

Girard describes his experience with Our Heritage Wesleyan Church in Scottsdale, Arizona. Running a heavily programmed, outwardly “successful” evangelical church, Girard sensed a hollowness in it all, because he became convinced the “success” did not really represent the joy and power of the New Testament. And so Girard turned away from the pastorally planned program to let God build His church. And he turned to cell groups to find the spiritual life his church needed.

Girard’s story has been told before—and perhaps better—in Tom Allan, The Face of My Parish, Joseph McCabe, The Power of God in a Parish Program, and Robert Raines, New Life in the Church. But that doesn’t make it superfluous. Every testimony to a revitalized church is worthwhile because, like Paul’s reports in Acts, it is a story of God at work.

The book is a little repetitive in places, and it tends to sensationalize somewhat, reveling in the “wow!” of spiritual liberation. But perhaps the fault lies in the fact that churches by and large do not expect to live in the freedom and power of the Spirit; this makes the experience seem abnormal. The danger, of course, is that cell groups will become another gimmick. In the end the Church is not just living-room rap sessions. It is the body of Christ in the world, with a structure, a confession, a missionary task, and a prophetic witness to the world. But where the Church has not found authentic spiritual life, the courage to let go and test new forms may be a necessary step.

NEWLY PUBLISHED

A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, by Homer Hailey (Baker, 428 pp., $6.95). Fills a gap in most expositors’ libraries. Gives verse-by-verse help—neither sermonic nor technical—on background and meaning.

What Does God Want, Anyway?, by Okke Jager (Judson, 191 pp., $6.50). An admirable, well written discussion of how to find out.

The Psychology of Religious Doubt, by Philip M. Helfaer (Beacon, 345 pp., $19.95). An absorbing study of twelve Protestant seminarians (evangelicals and liberals) and their bouts with uncertainty. Helfaer, a clinical psychologist, provides insight into the problems but makes no attempt to solve them. Those suffering from religious doubt won’t necessarily find help here.

Techniques and Resources for Guiding Adult Groups, edited by Harold D. Minor (Abingdon, 159 pp., $2.25 pb). This book is divided into four sections: group life, guiding a study group, ways of learning, and resources for learning. Unfortunately, each main section has so many subheadings and divisions that the book becomes fragmented and hard to follow.

Liberated Love, by Chester A. Pennington (Pilgrim, 127 pp., $4.95). A sensitive little book that puts love in proper perspective.

Reason in Pastoral Counseling, by Paul A. Hauck (Westminster, 236 pp., $5.95). A clinical psychologist outlines a new technique for pastoral counseling based on rational-emotive therapy, an Albert Ellis brain-child. Shows, with case histories, how pastors can use elements of this approach.

A Literary Approach to the New Testament, by John Paul Pritchard (University of Oklahoma, 1972, 358 pp., $8.95). An interesting but perhaps not very helpful critical review. Discusses such literary techniques as symbolism, themes, and juxtaposition, as well as the stylistic development of some New Testament writers. Such an approach does give a good introductory background to the culture and historical setting of the New Testament.

Effective Counseling, by Gary Collins (Creation House, 202 pp., $2.95 pb). A handbook written to inform church leaders of changes and progress in the counseling field and how these can be applied to their ministry.

Healer of the Mind, edited by Paul E. Johnson (Abingdon, 270 pp., $6.95). Ten specialists in psychotherapy, including Paul Tournier and Donald Moore, speak freely of their personal quests for a faith to live by.

The Reality of the Devil: Evil in Man, by Ruth Nanda Anshen (Harper, 142 pp., $6.95). A strange book on the phenomenology of evil and the Evil One by a writer who takes the Devil seriously, though she is not committed to biblical Christianity. Contains many fascinating ideas, especially about the ambiguity of evil and its representatives, but needs to be supplemented by more reliably biblical material.

See Also

Page 6177 – Christianity Today

Wandering in the Wildnerness: Christians and the New Culture, by Robert Benne (Fortress, 115 pp., $3.25 pb). A plan for parish renewal incorporating the youth culture, the small-group movement, and organizational development.

The Church and the Ecological Crisis, by Henlee H. Barnette (Eerdmans, 114 pp., $2.25 pb). This attempt to couple a sacramental view of nature with a sketchy recital of well-known ecological data does not increase our appreciation for either.

How to Believe Again, by Helmut Thielicke (Fortress, 220 pp., $3.95 pb). Topical sermons by Germany’s most popular Protestant pulpiteer. Thielicke almost always gives evangelicals food for thought, and much of what he says is very useful, especially as guidance for a psychologically effective application of Christian truth.

Audio-Visual Media in Christian Education, by Gene A. Getz (Moody, 236 pp., $5.95). Revision of a thoroughly practical manual that should be in all church libraries. At times the material may sound simplistic, but many churches need to know the basics as well as the more sophisticated information Getz gives.

Puritan Rhetoric: The Issue of Emotion in Religion, by Eugene E. White (Southern Illinois University, 215 pp., $7.95). An introduction to and documents of the Great Awakening. Interesting, timely reading in light of the contemporary revival scene.

Then Joy Breaks Through, by George Benson (Seabury, 139 pp., $4.95). A Christian psychoanalyst compares the case history of a guilt-ridden teen-ager with the stages of growth in the life of the Apostle Peter, emphasizing the restorative power of the Christian faith.

The Unprivate Life of a Pastor’s Wife, by Frances Nordland (Moody, 176 pp., $3.95). A realistic assessment of the responsibilities and privileges of the pastor’s wife. Drawing on thirty years of experience, the author intersperses humor, Scripture, and personal illustrations in a highly readable account.

Ethical Resources for Political and Economic Decision, by Harvey Seifert (Westminster, 174 pp., $5.75). Ethical guidelines for radically altering our political and economic structures. Changes in beliefs and life-styles are seen as prerequisite to a successful adaptation to the next stage of human history.

Creative Congregations, edited by Edgar R. Trexler (Abingdon, 143 pp., $2.45 pb), and New Hope for Congregations, by Loren Mead (Seabury, 128 pp., $2.95 pb). Filled with case studies of “creative congregations,” these are both “can do” and “how to” books that should interest anyone whose local church congregation lacks vitality.

The Mental Health Ministry of the Local Church, by Howard J. Clinebell, Jr. (Abingdon, 300 pp., $2.95 pb), and Group Counseling in the Church, by John B. Oman (Augsburg, 128 pp., $2.95 pb). The central thesis of the first book (reprint of a 1965 title) is the healing-redemptive ministry of the local church in both the preventive and the therapeutic aspect of mental health. The second book is a guide for developing counseling groups in which the healing of persons is brought about through a caring community.

The Delicate Creation, by Christopher Derrick (Devin-Adair, 129 pp., $5.95). A brilliant and imaginative essay on the relation between theology and ecology. Derrick, a conservative Roman Catholic, interprets today’s crisis as a stage in the conflict between Christian (i.e., creationist and Gnostic-Manichaean (i.e., anti-creationist) thought.

Black Religion and Black Radicalism, by Gayraud S. Wilmore (Doubleday, 344 pp., $7.95). A historical analysis of the black religious experience stressing the centrality of that experience to the whole spectrum of black American history and culture.

A Social Action Primer, by Dieter T. Hessel (Westminster, 138 pp., $2.95 pb). A how-to-do-it handbook for groups interested in altering societal structures. In non-technical terms the author stresses strategic thinking and effective action. A final chapter is on local church involvement.

Three Popes and the Cardinal, by Malachi Martin (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 300 pp., $7.95). A former Jesuit professor brings a detailed knowledge of history and contemporary Catholic church politics into play to predict the imminent disappearance of Roman Catholicism as a viable structure. Provocative but not necessarily reliable prophecy.

The Betrayal of Wisdom, by R. J. Kreyche (Alba House, 237 pp., $3.95 pb). A former president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association attempts to rescue philosophy from its current disrepute by urging a return to the idea of philosophy as therapy, wisdom, and understanding of life. Offers a creative human dimension along with a fresh treatment of selected philosophical themes.

The Dispersion of the People of God, by Richard R. DeRidder (Baker, 239 pp., $4.95 pb). A discussion of Matthew 28:19, 20 against the background of Jewish proselytism and Jesus’ apostleship, with an application to the life of the Church today. Originally a Ph.D. thesis at the Free University of Amsterdam by a former missionary who is currently a pastor in the United States.

The pen of General Mobutu Sese Seko, president of Zaire (formerly Congo), has proved mighty like a sword. He used it in a double stroke to render hors de combat more than 1,300 religious groups in his nation. The move radically altered the church scene in Zaire.

The first stroke of his pen signed into law on December 31, 1971, the requirement that all but three main churches reapply for permission to function. The three exempted were the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Christ in Zaire, which had united various Protestant denominations, and the Kimbanguist Church, an independent African movement (see March 17 issue, page 42).

The second stroke fell on March 27, 1972: the President signed three of the applications submitted by numerous churches and movements wanting to continue. The second group of three that joined the original trio were the Israeli Community of Kinshasa, the Islamic Community of Zaire, and the Greek Orthodox Church. All the other 1,300-plus groups except one had to disband and disappear (see May 12 issue, page 38).

Now the dust has settled enough to attempt an evaluation. The radical restraint on religious activities had both short- and long-term implications for Protestants in Zaire.

Cold-Blooded Politics

Some observers attribute President Mobutu Sese Seko’s crackdown on religion to his “Campaign for Authenticity.” Zaire’s African personality was in danger of suffocation by Western technology and culture, he charged late last year. The time had come to reassert authentic Bantu values in art, music, and every other aspect of national life. Some believed this meant the nation’s religious life as well.

Other Africa watchers, including the diplomatic corps in Zaire, suspect the sudden concern for Bantu personality may have been prompted as much by politics as by ideals. The authenticity campaign coincided with severe economic troubles caused mainly by an almost 50 per cent drop in the price of copper ore. This export garners four-fifths of Zaire’s hard currency. Waving the flag of authenticity helped divert public attention from increasing inflation.

Similarly, politics—not ideals—prompted the government’s action against religious groups on December 31, 1971.

Since independence in 1960, Zaire had become the breeding ground for a swarm of prophetic movements, secret cults, and splinter churches. A self-styled prophet or frustrated church leader or divided congregation seemed reason enough for a new group to organize and proselytize and hundreds did. The new organization often assumed an imposing name, in contrast to its small size, such as Church of Renaissance Love, Jehovah’s Church of Men of Goodwill, Israeli Army of Builders of the Kingdom of God, and Church of Faith by the Prophet Isaiah. One small city of about 80,000 in Central Zaire bred 150 different movements, the Lower Zaire Province more than 300. The Ministry of Justice knew of 1,300 groups nationwide, and hundreds more probably never bothered to declare themselves.

This epidemic stirred public criticism. A daily newspaper in the capital city of Kinshasa expressed the disgust of many citizens. Citing the practice by one group of sleeping in the cemetery at night, it condemned such irresponsible movements as a threat to public order—if not the security of the nation.

Other African states had as many or more such religious movements and did not consider them dangerous. Why should Zairians be so jittery? Because of their recent bitter experience. In just seven years of independence, Zaire suffered one full-scale rebellion, two coup d’états, three military mutinies, and two abortive secessions. Zairians attributed these troubles to irresponsible political factions. They were in no mood to tolerate erratic cults whose antics could cause more national grief.

No one appreciated this problem more than President Mobutu. Since seizing power in 1965 he had pushed the nation well uphill toward unity and stability. But progress was still precarious. If he stumbled, he knew he would be crushed as Zaire plunged downhill again to tragedy. The chaotic proliferation of cults could cause that stumble. If he didn’t move to control them, his enemies might.

The founder of one movement had already been accused of high treason. Emmanuel Bamba, leader of the Eglise congolaise, was arrested and hanged with other members of the “Easter Plot” against the President’s life in 1966. Since then, according to David B. Barrett, an authority on African religious movements, such groups in Zaire had become a political issue.

Bystanders Or Targets?

Legislators drawing up the bill for presidential approval assured troubled Protestant leaders that the measures were aimed only at the cults. Established churches and missions were not targets. But it may have been more than coincidence that just six months before, the Protestants of Zaire had suffered the severest split in their history (see April 14 issue, page 4). It was certainly no coincidence that the only Protestant group to survive the President’s slashing pen was the Church of Christ in Zaire (CCZ).

Dr. I. (Jean) Bokambanza Bokeleale, president of the CCZ, had linked church unity to politics since he took office in 1969. He preached that opposition to organic unity was tantamount to rebellion against the regime. This political overtone disturbed some churchmen, but Dr. Bokeleale realized early success toward a united church. He had given expression to a deep feeling among all kinds of leading Protestants for a more visible form of their oneness in Christ.

Trouble started in 1970 when the long-standing forty-five-member Congo Protestant Council formally became the CCZ. Unconstitutional aspects of the vote, plus theological objections, eventually forced many member denominations to withdraw. They and other groups reorganized along the lines of the former council.

Not being part of CCZ, the thirty-three members of this Council of Protestant Churches of Zaire (CPCZ) were hit by the President’s ultimatum of December 31. Although the council tried hard to meet the government’s stringent requirements, its efforts for legal status failed.

But the government dealt more kindly with the abortive council than with the spurious sects and cults. The latter were simply and severely told to disband; their followers could individually join one of the approved groups. The CPCZ was promised a listing of Protestant denominations permitted to function within the CCZ.

The list appeared seven suspense-filled weeks later. It shows what happens when politics goes to church. The united church jumped from its original forty-five members to seventy-two. Not only were all dissident denominations reintegrated; left-over groups unwanted by the other approved associations were also swept in (see July 7 issue, page 36). One of these groups, the Seventh-day Adventists, has the distinction now of being the only SDA group that is a part of a united church.

PLACED BY THE GIDEONS

The landlord offers us his space for let

And it is scarred, by other loners

And losers: the split and peep-holed windowshade

Winking with garish signs, the sprung window,

Webs in the drawers, the mattress unsprung

And burns upon the counterpane, up the plumbing

A red spider running on infinitely painstaken wires,

Like a moving star cluster; and the landlord

Offers us his solace, his book of loving,

Left behind after Gideon and the others slept,

Passage fallen open for a sign, a sign:

How many mansions there are prepared

In that other house, beyond the landlord’s room

He offers now, where every door closets the dark,

The spider threads an orrery, the plumbing perspires.

NANCY G. WESTERFIELD

Bokeleale protested strongly that the CCZ should have the right to choose its own members. He promised that the united church would soon produce its own approved list.

The government’s action toward the divided Protestants resembles a familiar “African solution”: no one wins all, no one loses all. The CCZ maintained its distinction as the only recognized Protestant church. All the dissident denominations were returned intact to the united church; not one was forced to disband or reorganize. Summing it all up, the weekly magazine Zaire (reputedly the President’s own) concluded: “All the Protestant communities have been put in the same sack and condemned to get along with each other.”

Assessing The Aftermath

The net result seems to be a return to the status quo. The only apparent change stipulated that all denominations (now called communities) and missions must work within the CCZ structure. The official list published by the government pointedly assured local autonomy of the united church members, a key issue raised by the CPCZ. A preamble to the actual list of authorized communities states, “These associations are grouped by executive order within the Church of Christ in Zaire while retaining their own legal status” (italics added).

One high-ranking government official told leaders of the disbanded CPCZ, “The internal affairs of the united church are your problems, not ours. If you don’t like the leadership or the constitution, you can always change them. But you must do so from within.” If this is indeed the government’s attitude, it has significant bearing on what the reunited CCZ members can do about the issues that still divide them.

Church workers in the provinces tend to treat the decisions and events in Kinshasa as just a bad dream. Hoping that little has changed, they plan to carry on as before. The average church member is uniformed and unconcerned. But in this writer’s opinion, significant trends have been activated that will increasingly shape Protestant life in Zaire. The government’s political decision set off a chain reaction of developments not all immediately apparent—and not all political.

Shrinking freedom. The precedent has been set for government intervention in the nation’s religious life. Religious freedom has been compromised. The Minister of Justice, perhaps unintentionally, made this clear in commenting on the December 31 law: “We have freedom of religion in this country just as we have freedom of the press.” Anyone connected with the mass media knows just how much “freedom” the press enjoys in Zaire.

Not only has the precedent of government control been set, but the channel has been simplified. Instead of dealing with seventy-two different church offices, the regime can work through the CCZ secretariat, which oversees and coordinates activities of the member communities.

Disappearing neutrality. Bokeleale’s insistence on “one leader, one party, one church” closely identified Protestants with Zaire’s only political party, the Mouvement populaire de la revolution. The government’s accolade of approval on the CCZ formalized that relationship.

Some local churchmen suspect that ties between the united church leadership and the government are financial as well as ideological. Although the CCZ secretariat has received almost no funds from member groups, it has been able to organize and finance provincial-level offices throughout the nation. Pastors of the CCZ Provincial Synod of Lower Zaire officially requested a report of the secretariat’s independent financial sources. Bokeleale has refused such an accounting in the past.

FREE PARASITES

Scamper and run free, dead leaves,

Crackle and fire the lower world.

You were once fastened in lively slavery,

Responsive to the dew, the merry wind,

The clatter of birds, the bend and swoop

Of the green bough. Who can catch your

Elusive drive, now, or stoop

To find your crowded, dry bed

And bind you with unnatural grace

To the blood-rich vine where you can face

A greater beauty than your own;

Or dance in place, yet not alone,

With room for a rarer, wilder bloom?

So be an orchidic parasite,

Gaily prey on that anchor-tree

While life nods green and choice looms free!

ELLEN STRICKLAND

This close relation to the regime disturbs church workers accustomed to neutrality in political matters. One pastor confided an uneasiness shared by his colleagues: “The church is now little more than a shadow of the regime; if it falls, so will the church.” Disloyalty to the government is not the issue with these men; they readily acknowledge President Mobutu’s considerable achievements. Zaire’s short, turbulent history troubles them. The possibility of yet another upheaval and its consequences for the church is a horrible thought, but not unreasonable.

Too-close ties between the CCZ and the ruling party have another drawback: the church risks alienating people who sorely need its ministry. Like every one-party system, Zaire’s government has its excesses. Will the victims of these excesses turn for spiritual help to a church fulsome in its praise of the regime?

Continuing tensions. The united church’s organizational structure and leadership do not accurately represent the desires of its members. This is not only true of the dissident groups forced back into the CCZ, more convinced than ever that they are right. Communities that remained in the united church have cut off their financial support of the organization. Events since last December have largely polarized the church’s national leaders and provincial communities into two groups.

Bokeleale attempts to minimize the past months as a distasteful, minor incident, the quicker forgotten the better. But the issues will not be shrugged off. Tensions will remain and deprive the church of spiritual vitality until the local and national church leaders move to resolve their differences in Christian love and honesty.

Widening unity. The ecumenical dialogue is further advanced in Zaire than elsewhere in French-speaking Africa. Bokeleale and his staff have actively encouraged this trend, and would like to see more. Answering a question on unity by journalists, he countered, “You talk to me only about unification of Protestants. Why not about our uniting with the Catholics and Kimbanguists? The Church is one and indivisible.”

Currently the CCZ leader favors a council of the six religious groups. Yet a future church combining numerous confessions is not discounted. The secretariat’s director of information wrote several articles favoring a single national church. In one article he applauded a fellow journalist’s contention that all paths, even Islam’s, “converge toward the same goal which is God.” Later he wrote, “In the future, authentic Zairian ecumenicity should result in a single Christian Church neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Kimbanguist; a Zairian Church matured by the force of theological ideas and Bantu principles.”

Limiting missionaries. After the government announced its final position on churches and prophetic movements, one writer in a Kinshasa daily paper, Elima, proposed some follow-up action. He repeated the familiar accusation that “fundamentalists and other foreign missionaries” plotted Protestant disunity. Then he suggested, “The best thing would be to have fewer missionaries in our associations, but have them more honest and sincere.…”

Bokeleale tried unsuccessfully last year to take control over which missionaries could work in Zaire. Quoting as his authority an annual synod decision found nowhere in the official minutes, he informed the government that all future visa requests by missionaries should first be cleared by his office. By denying visas to certain missionaries, he could weaken the resolve of communities opposed to his concept of organic unity. Although the Foreign Ministry rejected his claim, several overseas embassies did receive instructions to refer missionary visa requests to Bokeleale.

Such action widens the gap between the secretariat and the member communities. The CCZ president repeatedly assured wavering communities that their autonomy remained intact within the united church. But his attempts to control missionary visas contradicted this assurance. He was in effect trying to deprive local groups of the right to choose who could work with them.

After the December 31 decision, an American embassy official asked the CCZ president about the future of missionaries in Zaire. “Missionaries who cannot work with us,” Bokeleale replied, “will have to look elsewhere for work, just like any other person whose company goes bankrupt.”

The Zairian government revised its visa system in August. Missionaries now wanting to work in Zaire will get only a three-month entry permit from overseas embassies, they must obtain resident visas after arriving in the country. Will Bokeleale use this change to cut off the inflow of missionaries unsympathetic to his concept of organic unity? He probably will try.

Turned-On Church Leaders

Offsetting these sobering possibilities are some positive aspects that could direct the Protestants of Zaire toward brighter days. Both President Mobutu and Dr. Bokeleale started these trends and have thereby done great service to the church.

Protestants now realize the government is keenly church-conscious. Gone are the free-wheeling days of dissent and divide in total disregard to what others thought. Although proliferation among Protestants did not reach the epidemic proportions of the prophetic movements, churches and missions had their problems. Some conflicts persist unresolved after ten years.

Now Christians have a tangible reason as well as a scriptural injunction to settle matters among themselves: they are being watched by a security-sensitive state. The more closely they follow the biblical norm of living together in love, the less likely they will experience further government intervention.

In short, the Church of Christ in Zaire has been given a second chance to sort things out and get along as Christians should. The weekly magazine Zaire said as much: “Now that the government has demonstrated anew its confidence in the Protestant communities, it is up to them as well as the CCZ leaders to show themselves worthy of this mark of confidence.”

Bokeleale may well be remembered for shouting from the housetop what other Africans were muttering under their breath. In pushing organic church union, he expressed a common sentiment among Zairians of many church backgrounds. They did not appreciate the historical reasons dividing Zaire’s forty-five Western denominations and missions; they do not feel constrained to perpetuate them. Leading churchmen and laymen disagree with Bokeleale on how far and how fast they should move toward organic union. But they agree on the basic principle of a more tangible structure of their common faith in Christ.

Bokeleale brutally but effectively clarified missionary thinking on this point. Once convinced he was right, the majority of missionaries were willing to step back and see what African believers and the Holy Spirit could work out. The few who refused to take this attitude are frequently the same ones who persist in their excessive influence over the local church.

The most significant, positive result of events inside and outside the CCZ is the aroused concern of capable church leaders in the ranks. Thanks to President Mobutu Sese Seko, these pastors and laymen are held more accountable for the church’s conduct than ever. Thanks to Dr. Bokeleale, the church is theirs as never before.

One experienced European church worker attended the annual sessions of the Congo Protestant Council at Bukavu several years ago. Observing the same leaders again at Mbandaka in 1971 during the first annual synod of the CCZ, she was astounded by the contrast. The delegates at Mbandaka, alert and articulate, were beginning to have their own ideas on the role and nature of their church.

These turned-on church leaders may spring the next surprise in the fast-paced story of religion in Zaire. Having been shaken loose from the past by both the government and Bokeleale, they could emerge as co-authors with the Holy Spirit of a glorious new chapter in African church history.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

According to the sponsors of a recent forum held at Miami University, liberal leaders in the churches urge Christians “to empower minority people, end the war and racism,” and conservatives “urge Christians to seek inward peace and renewal.” Although this is neither a completely accurate nor a universally valid characterization, it is fair to say that in the last fifty years theological liberals have tended to stress social issues to the exclusion of the preaching of the Gospel to individuals, whereas theological conservatives have done the reverse.

To treat ethical pronouncements on social issues as a substitute for Christ’s redemptive message is a grave error—even from a pragmatic, sociological view. On the other hand, to avoid social issues is to retreat into a reactionary monasticism.

A survey of the responses of the early Christian Church to social issues may help us see the present dichotomy in a better perspective.

I. The Biblical Basis

Although the Old Testament is primarily concerned with Israel’s relationship to God, it also abounds with condemnations of social injustice and with exhortations to be concerned about those in less fortunate circ*mstances (e.g., Deut. 15:7).

Christ came to die for sinful men and to reconcile them to God. But he was also quite clearly concerned about the physical needs of the masses as he went about feeding the hungry and healing the sick. The criterion he set forth for the judgment of nations was the manner in which they would treat those who were strangers, naked, and imprisoned (Matt. 25:31–46).

Paul, in his earnest concern for the preaching of the Gospel, was at the same time occupied with the collection of funds to aid the poor Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1–3; 2 Cor. 8). Christian benevolence was to be directed especially to believers, but also to all men (Gal. 6:10). According to Paul, all men and women were equal in Christ, where there can be neither (ouk eni negating not merely the fact but the possibility) “Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11; cf. Gal. 3:28).

The earliest Christians even after Pentecost were not instantaneously cleansed from their old prejudices. In Acts 6 we read of a dispute between the Hellenist and Hebraist Jewish Christians because of discrimination against the former group. Wealthy Christians showed gross insensitivity and carnality by appearing drunken at the Communion table while their poorer brethren went hungry (1 Cor. 11:20–22). James 2 describes in vivid fashion the partiality of a Christian church (sunagōgē, possibly “court”) toward a man who is dressed in magnificent garb at the same time that a man in shoddy clothing is treated rudely. James (5:1–6) excoriates the wealthy who have defrauded the poor. He further (2:15, 16) denounces the hypocrisy of some Christians: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (cf. 1 John 3:17, 18).

Despite its imperfections, the Christian Church had a dynamic message of salvation that touched the hearts of many in every station of life. Converts included: slaves such as Onesimus (cf. Paul’s letter to Philemon); Africans such as the Ethiopian treasurer of Candace of the Sudan (Acts 8:27) and Simeon Niger (“the Black,” Acts 13:1); women such as Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:14 ff.); soldiers like the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10); and officials like the governor of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus—a man who had once filled the highest elective office in Rome, that of a consul (Acts 13:7; the Greek anthupatos stands for the Latin proconsul).

The most striking testimony to the success of Christianity in reaching all classes appears in the letter of Pliny the Younger, an official over Bithynia and Pontus in northwestern Turkey, to the Emperor Trajan early in the second century:

The question seems to me to be worthy of your consideration, especially in view of the number of persons endangered; for a great many individuals of every age and class, both men and women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too which are infected through contact with this wretched cult.

Ii. The Early Church And Social Needs

Even a writer as unfriendly to Christianity as the historian Edward Gibbon acknowledges the importance of Christian benevolence in the triumph of Christendom. The early Christian writers were themselves aware of the transformation Christ caused in their attitudes toward their neighbors. In one of the earliest apologetic works preserved, Justin Martyr (d. 165) writes:

We used to value above all else money and possessions; now we bring together all that we have and share it with those who are in need (cf. Acts 4:34–37). Formerly, we hated and killed one another and, because of a difference in nationality or custom, we refused to admit strangers within our gates. Now since the coming of Christ, we all live in peace. We pray for our enemies and seek to convert those who hate us unjustly … [I Apology XIV].

Tertullian (160–220) said: “It is our care for the helpless, our practice of lovingkindness, that brands us in the eyes of many of our opponents. ‘Only look,’ they say, ‘look how they love one another’” (Apology XXXIX).

Adolf Harnack lists in The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (reprinted by Harper, 1962), ten ways in which the early churches manifested their concern for mankind:

1. Alms in general. Even poor Christians were urged to give alms by stinting and fasting.

2. The support of teachers and officials.

3. The support of widows and orphans. According to Eusebius, the church in Rome in the third century supported 1,500 widows and persons in distress. This was one facet of Christianity that impressed even Julian the Apostate: “These godless Galileans,” he said, “feed not only their own poor but ours; our poor lack our care.”

4. The support of the sick, the infirm, the poor, and the disabled. Christians established hospitals in a number of cities.

5. Care for prisoners and for people languishing in the mines. Licinius, the last emperor before Constantine, passed a law directed at Christians to the effect that “no one was to show kindness to sufferers in prison by supplying them with food, and that no one was to show mercy to those who were starving in prison.”

6. Care of poor people requiring burial, and of the dead in general. Julian remarked, “This godlessness is mainly furthered by its philanthropy towards strangers and its careful attention to the bestowal of the dead.” Lactantius (c. 240–320) explained:

We cannot bear that the image and workmanship of God should be exposed as a prey to wild beasts and birds, but we restore it to the earth from which it was taken, and do this office of relatives even to the body of a person whom we do not know, since in their place humanity must step in [Institutes VI, 12].

7. Care for slaves. Slavery was a major institution of varied character in the ancient world. Slaves in the mines were barbarously treated. On the other hand, prisoners of war from Greece who became slaves were respected for their cultural superiority and were employed as teachers and secretaries. In Rome the slaves of the wealthy were better dressed and better fed than the poor, free citizens who lived off the doles of the emperor. Roman slaves could sometimes save up their own funds and buy their freedom after about seven years.

Unlike the Essenes and some Stoics, early Christians did not believe in the abolition of slavery. After Onesimus, the runaway slave, was converted, Paul sent him back to his Christian master Philemon with the confidence that Philemon would receive him back as a Christian brother. Early in the second century Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, advising: “Despise not slaves whether men or women. Yet let not these again be puffed up, but let them serve the more faithfully to the glory of God, that they may obtain a better freedom from God” [cf. 1 Cor. 7:21; 1 Tim. 6:2].

Slaves could become pastors. The Roman bishops Pius (140–54) and Callistus (217–22) were probably former slaves. To set a slave free was regarded as praiseworthy. Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (late first century), writes: “We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others.”

8. Care for people visited by great calamities. In the reign of Maximin, an emperor who persecuted Christians, a great plague struck. According to Eusebius IX, 8:

Alone in the midst of this terrible calamity they [the Christians] proved by visible deeds their sympathy and humanity. All day long some continued without rest to tend the dying and bury them—the number was immense; and there was no one to see to them; others rounded up the huge numbers who had been reduced to scarecrows all over the city and distributed loaves to them all, so that their praises were sung on every side, and all men glorified the God of the Christians and owned that they alone were pious and truly religious: did not their actions speak for themselves?

During the famine of 367 Basil of Cappadocia in eastern Turkey preached against the avarice of the rich and organized relief for the destitute. He wrote to governors urging the remission of taxes for the dispossessed and the redress of injuries for the oppressed. In sermons on “The Rich,” “Avarice,” and “In Time of Famine and Need” “he drove home the fact that every man had an inalienable right to a living—a right that was not to be violated by the claims of property or possessions; and in the case of conflict, private rights must cede before common needs” (Francis Murphy, Politics and the Early Christian).

9. The furnishing of work. The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies advised: “For those able to work, provide work: and to those incapable of work, be charitable.” The author of the Didache was aware that there might be abuses of the Church’s generosity: “But if he has no craft, according to your wisdom provide how he shall live as a Christian among you, but not in idleness. If he will not do this, he is trafficking upon Christ.”

10. Care for brethren on a journey. The oldest account of worship on Sunday (Justin’s Apology I) reports that part of the collection was used to support strangers on their travels.

To be sure, there were also tensions and excesses in the early Church. Fanatical bands of circumcellions, extremists of the Donatist movement in North Africa during the time of Augustine (c. 400), used physical force to promote the equalization of wealth, burning the houses of those who resisted. They coerced landlords to free their slaves, and, reciting “deposuit potentes de sede, et exaltavit humiles” (“He put the powerful down from their seat and exalted the humble” [Luke 1:52]), they forced wealthy men traveling in carriages to exchange places with their footmen.

Iii. The Early Church And Human Lives

Christians also expressed their compassion for their fellow humans by condemning practices that held life in cheap regard. Christians condemned suicide, abortion, and infanticide. They rescued and raised unwanted babies abandoned on dung heaps.

Entertainment in the Roman Empire was provided primarily by the sanguinary gladiatorial games. By the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41–54), 93 days of the year were devoted to games, and by the fourth century no fewer than 175. Trajan (early second century) celebrated his Dacian victories with four months of games involving 10,000 gladiators. Of all the Roman writers, Seneca’s voice was a lone one raised in protest. But Christian writers were unanimous in denouncing the carnage of the games. They finally ended in A.D. 404 when the monk Honorius rushed into the arena to stop the games and was killed in the process.

Though soldiers who were converted to Christ were not required to leave the army, the early Church retained a generally pacifist position down to Constantine. Christians did not take part in the defense of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War (A.D. 66–73), but were warned by a vision to flee to Pella in Transjordan before the fall of the city (Eusebius III, 5). According to the Latin recension of Eusebius’s Chronicle preserved by Jerome, Bar Kochba killed Christians because they refused to join the Second Jewish-Roman War (A.D. 132–35).

Roland H. Bainton, professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale, writes: “The age of persecution down to the time of Constantine was the age of pacifism to the degree that during this period no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Christian participation in battle” (Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace). Tertullian declared that “Christ in disarming Peter ungirt every soldier.” Cyprian held that God had designed iron for tilling and not for killing. Arnobius even thought it was preferable for Christians to die rather than stain their hands with the blood of others. We read of a boy who was killed for his refusal to join the Roman army on the basis that he was a Christian (A.D. 295).

On the other hand, from the end of the second century A.D. there is evidence for the increased participation of Christians in the army, including the famous Thundering Legion under Marcus Aurelius. The conversion of Constantine and his military victory in the sign of the cross at the Milvian Bridge marked a turning point in the Church’s attitude toward war. Under Theodosius II in the early fifth century A.D., only Christians could serve in the army.

In an empire threatened by barbarian invasions, Ambrose and Augustine developed the doctrine of the just war, upheld by the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestants today. A just war is one that is just in intent—to restore peace and to vindicate justice—and just in conduct—without wanton violence and atrocities. According to Augustine, a war need not be waged on the basis of hate: “No one indeed is fit to inflict punishment save the one who has first overcome hate in his heart. The love of enemies admits of no dispensation, but love does not exclude wars of mercy waged by the good” (Epistle 138, ii, 15).

Iv. Historical Perspective

As historian George M. Marsden notes in a similar examination of the evangelical Church’s attitudes toward social concerns in more recent history (“Evangelical Social Concern—Dusting Off the Heritage,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, May 12, 1972), “tradition, of course, is not a sufficient guide in our discussions of how we should apply the Gospel.” The early Church may have been mistaken in some of its interpretations and practices. Or, granting their correctness for past periods, we need to take into account changed social and political conditions. At the very least, however, a review of the early Church’s attitudes should force us to examine whether our attitudes toward social issues are as biblical as those of former generations.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

Current reports that Chairman Mao is suffering from throat cancer, plus the fact that he is seventy-seven, make it seem likely that he will not live many more years.

Mao is certainly one of the most charismatic political leaders of this century. This charisma, added to his unwavering dedication to the goal of communizing and strengthening his nation, gives him greater stature than any other national leader today has in his own country.

The young Communist lieutenant who captured us and then lived in our home between battles during the Chinese civil war mirrored his chairman’s dedication. Just before he left us to join a battle in which he knew the odds against survival were twenty to one, I had a short conversation with this nineteen-year-old farm boy turned Communist.

“Sir, the defending army is better equipped than your army. It is protected by a moat, high walls, and iron gates that are heavily sandbagged.”

“I know that,” he replied, “but our enemy has no great cause to fight for and they will turn and run when the battle warms up.”

“What, really, do you have to fight for?” I asked.

“We are going to change the world in my generation.”

“But, sir, it won’t do you any good if you get killed during your attack on the city tonight.”

“Chairman Mao has told us we should be willing to die to change the world, and I am quite prepared to die to carry Communism a mile further.”

Today this young zealot lies beneath the soft dirt of the plains of central Honan Province. His dedication to his leader was typical of that shown by hundreds of thousands of other idealistic, and often deceived, youth.

Chairman Mao’s magnetism goes much deeper than simply passing his dedication on to his followers. The largest political party in the world has set out to deify him. He is the only god that millions of people have ever known. The old gods, the ancestral tablets, the temples and household shrines are all replaced by the all-seeing eye of Chairman Mao. Today it is the chairman and not the old gods whom the people thank for food, clothing, work, the birth of a child, a roof over their heads.

Does all this mean that Mao’s dynasty will last a thousand years? Are all the people of China really persuaded that Mao’s Communism is right for them and for their country? Will his passing be marked by an enormous display of grief among all the mainland Chinese?

The answer is a resounding No. Mao has many enemies. More than twenty years ago Chairman Mao promised his newly formed youth party that if they would follow him they would soon be in the saddle, helping him build and rule “the strongest nation in the world.” Millions of Chinese youth believed him. They sacrificed personal ambitions, education, and family to help him gain dictatorial power. They gave the best twenty years of their lives to their chairman, only to find he had deceived them. What did they receive from their sacrifice and struggles? Only disappointment. In their frustration and disillusionment they switched their allegiance to other national leaders.

The chairman sensed this threat to his own security and organized the new youth party in 1966. He named them “Red Guards” or “Little Generals.” He then ordered his youthful army of high school and college kids to sweep across their homeland, seeking out and destroying the “four olds”: old ideas, old customs, old habits, and old practices. The young zealots were also to wipe out anyone suspected of being anti-Mao. As an incentive they were promised promotions and positions in Mao’s paradise.

The Red Guards moved across China like a plague of locusts, destroying anything and anybody they didn’t like. For better than two years the devastation was terrible. Neither life nor property was safe from their wanton destruction.

And what was the reward for their work? Mao ordered the Red Army to transport the “Little Generals” to faraway farming communes, in effect putting them under detention. Out of the Cultural Revolution was born a quiet but deep hate for the “old pig” (a word only courageous youth would dare use against their former idol). The venom of hate flows through the bloodstream of the former “Little Generals” and their relatives, and also through the families of the so-called revisionists that the Red Guards had “struggled” to death. (“Struggled” is the Chinese Communist expression for accusation, persecution, trial, and often execution of any imagined enemy of the state.)

Mao has other enemies, including some who were among his earliest and most trusted comrades. He became obsessed with the notion that his close friend Liu Shao-chi, the president of Red China, was out to double-cross him and take over leadership of the country. To destroy Liu Shao-chi, Mao organized a massive propaganda campaign against the “Chinese Khrushchev” in his camp. He even allowed the Little Generals to “struggle” Liu’s wife. Later he was able to strip Liu Shao-chi of all authority and place him under house arrest. Does that look like a victory? Perhaps! But though Mao won a skirmish, he may have lost the battle. By mistreating Liu Shao-chi, the “fat god” (another Red Guard name for Mao) on his Peking throne made enemies of most of the Chinese with the surname Liu. The Liu clan number in the millions, and they share a hate for the man who toppled the most prominent member of their family.

The tightrope on which Mao was balanced was fraying in the middle. The party was no longer united solidly behind him. Its strands were unraveling before his dimming eyes.

Needing an heir, Chairman Mao turned to Marshal Lin Piao. This decision angered other military men who regarded Lin Piao as a “yes” man given his position because of his part in deifying Mao. More strands in the political tightrope snapped, and the list of highly placed malcontents increased.

To pile insult upon injury, Mao’s hand-picked heir apparently conspired with other military leaders and party members in an abortive attempt to assassinate Mao and seize power. Lin Piao’s intrigues backfired when a friend (possibly his daughter) betrayed him. It is believed that Lin Piao was killed as he fled to Russia in a jet plane. In any case, the Communist news media announced he was dead.

With the doing away of Lin Piao, the inevitable happened. Mao added a whole new clan of enemies, further weakening his personal security and the unity of his already splintered party.

Today Premier Chou En-lai is Chairman Mao’s most trusted lieutenant. He is a shrewd Communist politician and carries on most of the state business for the ailing chairman. Is he strong enough to hold China together when Mao dies? Is he enough of a diplomat to make friends of Mao’s many enemies? The answer to these questions is anybody’s guess. One thing is certain: No one man is strong enough to control China on his own. Only with the solid backing of the Communist party and the unwavering cooperation of the Red Army can Chou keep the country strong and united. Furthermore, to exist economically, Chou must tear down the bamboo curtain Chairman Mao so carefully constructed.

What does all this have to do with us as Christians? We remind ourselves that even during the tyrannical reign of Mao our God in no way relinquished his sovereignty. Scripture asserts, “For not from the east, nor from the west, nor from the desert comes exaltation; but God is the Judge; he puts down one, and exalts another” (Ps. 75:6, 7, New American Standard Version); “he it is who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. Scarcely have they been planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth, but he merely blows on them, and they wither, and the storm carries them away like stubble” (Isa. 40:23, 24, NASV).

As Chairman Mao slammed shut the front gate of China to the promulgation of the Gospel, so the man who succeeds him might in God’s sovereign plan kick the gate open.

Remember Indonesia! President Sukarno was busy turning his densely populated country over to the Communists when God blew on him and he withered away. President Suharto replaced him, and that land, once on the verge of closing to the Gospel, is now wide open. The God who did it in Indonesia could repeat the event in China.

In any case, we are given a prayer priority to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority” (1 Tim. 2:2). The purpose of this prayer is twofold: “that we might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” and that men might “be saved, and … come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

As God used nothing but a “noise” to cause the mighty army of Syria to flee and to bring deliverance to the starving people of Samaria (2 Kings 7:6), so God can use ping pong balls or economic pressures to bend and even flatten China’s bamboo fence. We must pray that the Lord will call out many of his Oriental servants to cross the downed fence and feed a starving nation with the Bread of Life.

As Christians we must view China from God’s point of view, not man’s. Our faith should be motivated by the spiritual, not smothered by the political. Righteous indignation against Chairman Mao’s God-hating ideology is right, but hatred or even indifference for the people who have been enslaved by this ideology is sinful and inexcusable.

At present, “the least” you can do is pray for China. It may be “the most” you can do, for prayer is the greatest weapon God has entrusted to man. I believe that if the persecuted Christian of China were asked, “What is your greatest need?,” without a moment’s hesitation he would reply, “Brethren, pray for us.”

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

I write this just as our ship is docking at Izmir in Turkey, which is the Smyrna of the Book of the Revelation. From here we head toward Alexandria, Haifa, and Beirut. We will visit the ruins of Babylon, stop at the street called Straight in Damascus, and walk the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem.

I have been trying to do a little extracurricular reading, which included volume two of Jennie, a biography of Winston Churchill’s mother. Churchill was greatly influenced by an Irish-American orator, Bourke Cochran, one of whose thoughts he used again and again. Indeed, he used it in his famous Iron Curtain speech at Fulton, Missouri: “There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they will but cultivate her soil in justice and in peace.” We are still a long way from that goal. In the Middle East multitudes of people have a standard of living far lower than the lowest in the United States.

The news of President Nixon’s reelection was no particular surprise, since the polls had foretold it since July. We don’t think that he or the nation should be complacent about the various charges leveled against the Republicans by the Democrats. Our editorial (see page 29) makes plain our opinion that a full and impartial investigation should be made of the charges and justice should be done. Meanwhile, we hope that this type of dirty political campaign will not be repeated next time around.