Christian Responsibility And The Law
After the longest debate in the history of the Senate, the civil rights bill has become law. It is no longer a political question. Unlike a Supreme Court decision in which the justices interpret the Constitution, the new civil rights law becomes an act of Congress, arrived at by the basic legislative process through which our American democracy functions.
Since the passage of the bill in the Senate, many thousands of words have been written in anticipation of its effect. Certainly the new law does not provide the whole solution of the racial problem. Complacency on the part of those who supported the legislation would be short-sighted. By the same token, bitterness on the part of those who opposed it would be dangerous.
The period ahead may well be domestically the most crucial in our history since the Civil War. Complex problems of compliance and enforcement will not quickly be solved. Long-established traditions will not easily be changed. In their response to the new law, our people face a searching test of civic maturity and responsibility. If some of the provisions of the civil rights act prove incapable of enforcement, superfluous, or unconstitutional, these flaws are bound to be revealed and, it is to be hoped, corrected by democratic processes. In the meantime great restraint in demonstrations and avoidance of inflammatory actions are essential.
But what, it may be asked, can Christians do in the present situation? The answer to that question must be given with humility. Surely now is the time to speak words of healing, repentance, love, and forgiveness according to the Word of God. Pride on the part of advocates of the civil rights legislation must be repented of no less than rancor on the part of its opponents. All are equally sinners in the sight of a Holy God; all need his forgiveness. As a great newspaper said editorially, “The real responsibility lies in the heart of each one of us.” If this is true, as indeed it is, the call for renewed and faithful proclamation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ was never greater. Perhaps never will this generation have a more critical need of that Gospel which alone can change the heart of man. Yet to expect all the problems facing the nation to be solved only by preaching and personal witnessing would be to fall into naïve over-simplification. Realism compels the acknowledgment that Christians have been ranged on both sides of the civil rights debate.
For Christians, the principle of obedience to law is mandatory. Herein lies an inescapable part of their function as salt in a secular society and light in a darkened world. In the classic New Testament passage about the relation of the believer to government, the Apostle Paul said, “Every Christian ought to obey the civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived from God’s authority, and the existing authority is appointed under God. To oppose authority then is to oppose God …” (Rom. 13:1, 2, Phillips). While obedience to the law for the sake of Christian conscience will not in itself settle everything, it is an example that no Christian should fail to set.
It is significant that immediately after the great exposition of the relation of the Christian to government, Paul turns to the law of love. After quoting from the Decalogue, he says, “All other commandments are summed up in this one saying: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Love hurts nobody: therefore love is the answer to the Law’s commands” (Rom. 13:9b, 10, Phillips). To love in this deep Christian sense is not easy. Years of controversy and strife are not lightly forgotten. Yet the word is sure: “Love never fails.” The constraining love of Christ is greater than misunderstanding and contention.
But at this point a commonsense observation should be made. Love for one’s neighbor does not necessarily mean personal attraction toward one’s neighbor. Love includes seeking for one’s neighbor what is good, and just, and best, even as it includes seeking these things for oneself. Personal preferences belong to another order.
It is not natural for man to love his neighbor as he should. No civil rights act can compel such love. But to Christians there is given by God’s grace a power that transcends the natural. As the great Apostle said of a higher law, “What the law could never do, because our lower nature robbed it of all potency, God has done: by sending his own Son in a form like that of our own sinful nature, and as a sacrifice for sin, he has passed judgment against sin within that very nature, so that the commandment of the law may find fulfilment in us, whose conduct, no longer under the control of our lower nature, is directed by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3, 4. NEB).
In a new and critical situation when the stability of our democracy is being tested, let Christians be what they really are—new men and women in Christ. Let them obey the God-ordained authority of their government, while manifesting love for their neighbors. And let them also proclaim the Gospel. Short of this there can be no real fulfillment of Christian responsibility.
Religious Liberty And The Armed Forces Sunday Schools
For some years a situation has existed in the Protestant Sunday schools in the Armed Forces that gives cause for concern regarding violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Affected is the religious freedom of hundreds of Protestant chaplains and about 150,000 pupils in military Sunday schools. At issue is the official promotion of the “Unified Protestant Sunday School Curriculum for Armed Forces” (UPSSC) and, in the case of the Air Force, the mandatory use of this curriculum in all Sunday schools on Air Force bases. Also in question is the use of Unified Course materials. While these materials are not technically required in the Armed Forces, they are so firmly backed by senior officers of the respective chaplaincies as to tip the scales heavily in favor of their use by chaplains. In the Air Force, only by special permission may substitute materials be used.
We recognize with gratitude the indispensable contributions of chaplains, their supporting denominations, and lay Christians to the men and women and families in the Armed Forces. Basic to the spiritual welfare and morale of service personnel is their relation to chaplains and to Christian commanders. We are also aware of the peculiarly difficult administrative problems of the service Sunday schools.
Nevertheless the Supreme Court said in deciding in Engel v. Vitale (the Regents’ prayer case) and Abington School District v. Schempp (the Bible reading and Lord’s Prayer case) that for government to prescribe religious and devotional materials is unconstitutional. But in the Armed Forces this very thing is being done extensively and against continued protest.
Since 1962 the National Association of Evangelicals has, in a series of communications, called the situation to the attention of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and the Department of Defense. Members of Congress have also protested. Nevertheless, a directive to command chaplains in the Air Force, dated December 16, 1963, declared: “This curriculum [UPSSC] is not only suggested; it is the Air Force Program, and Command Chaplains are expected to give it their leadership and support.” Of the materials, the directive said, “The Unified Course materials are selected annually by qualified civilian and military personnel. Because these materials represent the best available and come from many denominational sources, they are recommended for use in the Air Force Unified Religious Education Program.” Then, after instructions about procurement of supplementary materials, there is this statement: “The authority to supplement does not authorize elimination of the recommended materials. [Does not this imply prescription of materials?] If, however, the chaplains of a major faith group, on any given installation, find that the recommended course materials are inadequate to meet the needs of the religious education program … a letter may be submitted through channels to this office stating their reasons for regarding the materials to be inadequate and giving a description and the source of recommended substitute materials. If it is determined that a valid requirement for change exists and if the recommended course materials cover the subjects as outlined in the curriculum, favorable consideration will be given to the recommendation.”
Surely it is clear that this is a case in which a religious curriculum is prescribed and religious materials promoted by high military authority and in which the substitution of alternate materials is hedged about by official military procedure. Particularly disturbing is the refusal of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and the Department of Defense to alter the situation. In October, 1963, the Honorable Norman S. Paul, assistant secretary of defense, said in a letter to Representative L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, “With the pending change in Air Force regulations, there is no regulation which requires a military installation to use the Unified Sunday School Curriculum materials.” But with regard to the curriculum itself, the directive of December 16 of the same year, declaring the UPSSC to be “the Air Force Program” (italics ours), still stands. And as for the UPSSC materials, how can their official promotion by the directive be constitutionally justified?
At the Air Force Chaplains Conference in Washington in September, 1961, endorsing agents and denominational representatives of all the major denominations unanimously requested that mandatory provisions for the use of the Unified Curriculum be removed. At that time the Chief of Air Force Chaplains promised that the mandatory provisions would be removed. Almost three years have passed. The situation has not been rectified, despite protest from the National Association of Evangelicals, members of Congress, members of the Officers’ Christian Union, and others.
The problems of Sunday schools conducted under the military chaplaincies are not simple. Frequent shift of personnel from one post to another makes some uniform plan of study or curriculum highly desirable. Children should not have to study a lesson on Moses again when they move to a different Sunday school. But desirability cannot justify violation of religious freedom. As Mr. Justice Clark said in the majority opinion in Abington v. Schempp, “It is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon became a raging torrent.…”
Obviously, some correlation of religious instruction in Armed Forces Sunday schools is needed. An orderly Bible-study program, such as the International Sunday School Lessons, might be offered, but with unhampered liberty of substitution. The initiative should come from the religious groups and not through any official Armed Forces action.
As for course materials, religious groups might be invited to provide such materials with an understanding that they measure up to mutually agreed upon criteria. The use of specific materials should be wholly voluntary, and the supplementing or substituting of materials should not require official permission. The Armed Forces Chaplains Board should do nothing more than make available information about materials.
Granting the best of motives administratively and religiously on the part of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board in their endeavor to solve a real problem, the fact remains that the mandatory prescription of the UPSSC and official backing of its materials by the Air Force together with the official promotion of this curriculum and its materials by the other services violates the First Amendment. Rectification of this situation, which we respectfully call to the attention of the Department of Defense, is overdue.
Let’s Have The Unfiltered Truth
Anyone who has studied the evidence implicating cigarettes as a cause of lung cancer and of other serious diseases will find it difficult to muster sympathy for the cigarette industry in its present expression of outrage at the action of the Federal Trade Commission in deciding to require manufacturers to place warnings on their products and in their advertising. The specific ruling of the FTC is that beginning next year all cigarette packages must plainly call attention to the dangers of smoking and that by July, 1965, similar statements must be part of all cigarette advertising.
That the industry is responding with threats of legal contests estimated to delay enforcement of the new regulation for perhaps six years is not unexpected in the light of its long record of persistent opposition to medical and statistical evidence regarding the deleterious nature of its product.
In spite of the apathy of many members of Congress about a problem so intimately related to the public welfare and also despite the formidable economic problems involved, several things are plain. The Federal Trade Commission is obligated by law to see that the public knows when a product is dangerous. The cigarette industry has played fast and loose with truth in its advertising. The unfiltered truth must now be told, even though most cigarette smokers will probably ignore the warnings.
We acknowledge the legal right of the tobacco industry to appeal to the courts, although we question its moral right to postpone compliance with FTC regulations. We cannot help feeling, however, that it would enhance its public image and render better service to the country by using its resources to find new uses for tobacco and to equip those currently employed in the industry for different jobs.
Getting Ready For November 3
Democratic societies and their free governments are built on the proposition that the individual is significant. This evaluation of the individual is reflected in the respect democratic societies have for the rights of a minority, particularly in their recognition that a minority may be constituted by only one person. Even more, the supreme worth of the individual is a basic biblical concept, plainly stated by Christ himself.
It is strange and paradoxical, therefore, when members of a democratic society fail to vote because they feel that one man’s vote does not really count. This feeling keeps many people from the polls every election day. Yet the value of one man’s vote is that same value of the individual upon which democracy rests. Where the significance of one vote is denied, the significance of the individual on which democracy rests is undercut.
Those who are not moved by this bit of moral philosophizing may perhaps be moved by some facts and numbers. In recent years we have seen some very close elections. In 1960 John F. Kennedy attained the White House by a mere 100,000 votes. But in the same election 30,000,000 Americans failed to vote. If all those in this 30,000,000 who failed to vote because “one vote doesn’t count anyway” had actually voted, they could have put Richard M. Nixon in the Presidency, or given John F. Kennedy a landslide victory.
If one man’s vote does not count because one man does not count, then the foundation on which our democracy rests has been removed.
Merely to vote, however, is not enough. One must vote intelligently. To become informed about the men and the issues is the duty of every voting American, and surely not least the duty of every voting Christian. We should begin now by following the political conventions this summer. As we move toward another national election, Americans should become informed about the issues at stake. Every such election has history-making potential. When Tuesday, November 3, comes, choices will be on things more important than pleasing personalities and platform appearances.
Preparation for intelligent voting ought to begin now. This is the time for the voter to do his homework. If the American people are to make the grade in our revolutionary world, they cannot afford to act like college sophomores, putting off the homework with the intent to cram the night before. That never was a good way to stay in school, and it will never be a good way to stay in the business of democracy.
The national chairman of one of our political parties (no, not the one you are thinking of—the other one) has said that if “we get ten more votes in every precinct, there is no question about who will win in November.” For good or ill, each vote counts.
Troubled Waters
The disappearance of the three young men in Mississippi has served to highlight for the nation forces already in motion that are highly dangerous. Cooler heads on both sides are seeking to calculate the dynamics at work with the hope of mitigating them.
Men of good will everywhere feel deep concern for the three young men and compassion for their loved ones. Moreover, we are uneasy about what may yet happen. And we appreciate the idealistic and courageous motivation of students of the Mississippi Summer Project in the effort to develop crash education programs, welfare projects, and training toward increasing Negro voting registration.
Though Mississippi has made real efforts to improve itself in such fields as industrialization, agricultural reform, and education, it remains the state most closely related in the public mind to diehard segregation. Overt coercion and disrespect for law are evident daily.
This, then, is something of the scene confronting students being organized by the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO—Mississippi branches of various civil rights groups) and trained by the National Council of Churches’ Commission on Religion and Race in what many consider an ill-timed and unwise, though legal, program for whose complexities neither the commission nor its idealistic participants are fully prepared. Observers praise the youthful dedication of the students, which has apparently been stiffened by the disappearance of the three missing men even though death has become a greater possibility. According to Joseph Alsop, “an undeclared guerilla war has in fact begun” in Mississippi, for which there is no easy answer. The possible extension of this situation should be pondered, as Mr. Alsop points out, by some leaders who seem almost desirous of bringing about military occupation reminiscent of Reconstruction days.
But Mississippi is only part of the problem. A United States district judge in Florida has indicated that Ku Klux Klansmen are behind the segregationist counter-demonstrations in St. Augustine. J. Edgar Hoover has said that the infiltration, exploitation, and control of the Negro population in the United States has long been a Communist party goal and is one of its goals today. The NAACP’s Roy Wilkins has denounced New York Negro teen-agers as “punks” and “morons,” in reference to recent subway outrages. That armed vigilantes have sprung up in the nation’s greatest city and that parks and streets not only in New York but in other great cities are no longer safe shows the extent to which violence has invaded our society.
American citizens engaged in legal pursuits have the right of freedom of movement within the nation. But the situation is explosive. The need for caution on all sides must be reiterated. It seems tragic that major crises may be precipitated before the nation’s strongest civil rights measure has a chance of lawful application.
More federal action in Mississippi may regrettably prove necessary. But a Samaritan somehow haunts the scene. What might have been, had the white Christian tried to love his Negro neighbor just as much as he loved himself. And not only the Mississippi Christian but all of us. And what might yet be, if Christians in that troubled state would themselves be doing the things visitors from elsewhere have come to do.
Talking Machines Are Back
Some of us recall our shock on first hearing the human voice on a gramophone. Well, we are in for bigger shocks. According to John Wilkinson, staff member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, data-processing machines when linked together are able to converse together and come up with decisions. When computers are “joined together in such a way that the decisions—or outputs—of the one become the inputs of the other, a new unitary machine is created with properties … involving feedback and unpredictable secondary effects.” Wilkinson fears these decisions. Misread, says Wilkinson, they could plunge the world into nuclear, political, or economic upheavals. The computer, which threatens to downgrade man to the position of a “baby sitter” for a computing device, is also said to have something like a free will. How else could it converse? The mystery here is real and shocking. Yet we may be sure that the Word who became flesh is Lord, even over the word that comes from the new talking machine. As to the computer’s free will—this will give Calvinists plenty to talk about!
