EDITORIALS
The discovery a few months ago of the remains of a victim of crucifixion revealed that this form of execution may well have been even more torturous and barbaric than the literary evidence had indicated. The body was contorted into an unnatural position. The nails pierced the forearms instead of the palms. The cruelty of men to men is here seen at its basest in that this means of capital punishment was used by one of the more enlightened governments of the time!
Those who bear the name Christian must never allow the ornate gold or fine wood crosses of our day to obscure the fact that the cross in the first century was an official means of executing criminals. Among law-abiding Roman citizens, to glory in a cross made no more sense than for someone today to glory in an electric chair or firing squad or hangman’s noose.
But God showed the first Christians that it was their sins that sent Christ to the cross. They were enabled to look beyond the scandal of a condemned man to see that God used Jewish rejection and Roman “justice” to make it possible for the sins of all men to be forgiven through the bloody sacrifice of his sinless son. It was what God did at Calvary, not man, that enables us to call that Friday “Good.”
As the centuries passed, men overlooked the challenge to the Roman Empire that identification with one of her alleged enemies implied. They came to accept the cross as a covering for sin. But offense remained. For most men were unprepared to accept the death of Christ as the sole and sufficient means of their acceptance into the family of God as forgiven and cleansed sons. Men wanted in some way, large or small, to earn their salvation. Christendom was scandalized when men arose to proclaim the forgiveness of sins solely because of Christ’s death on the cross, apart from any human ceremony or work.
Even today, many labor far and wide to proclaim a “gospel” that does not offer acceptance with God on the basis of what Christ did on the cross alone. What it prescribes is Christ’s death plus something we do.
Others today do not so much pervert the message of the cross as ignore it; they seem to sense no need to have their sins paid for by the death of another. Indeed, they’re offended at the serious suggestion that they are heinous sinners in the sight of a righteous God. To be sure, men will joke about being sinners. And they will freely discuss the sins of others—of long-hairs or hard-hats, welfare recipients or establishment-types, communists or capitalists, peace-marchers or war profiteers, conservation nuts or industrial polluters. There is indeed a strong sense of sin in our day—but the sins of others are what most men are concerned about. Their own sins are denied, excused, blamed on others. So the aspect of the cross most scandalous to men today is not that its victim was considered a criminal, nor that the cross provided the sole and sufficient means of atoning for sins, but rather the assertion that man—each man—has sins that need to be taken care of in this drastic way.
The Church has handled previous kinds of offense by meeting the issue head-on. Christ crucified was proclaimed regardless of the consequences. The imperial authorities might take action lest the power of Rome be undermined; the ecclesiastical authorities might rail lest the power of their institutions over the lives of men be sapped; the people might scoff at the message because they were loyal citizens or because they liked the delusion that they had a role in their salvation; yet still the message was boldly proclaimed.
Regardless of the changing attitudes and responses of men, whether or not men feel a need for salvation, the Christian is to be faithful in proclaiming Christ’s death on the cross as the only and complete means of reconciling rebellious man to his loving but just creator. We should not be surprised when men scoff at or ignore this message; men have always taken offense at the cross. But the Holy Spirit, as he does his work of convicting men of their personal sins, has proved able to overcome all kinds of objections to the cross in order to make men see that this cruel instrument of execution, this sign of human bestiality, was the means God used to bring us to himself.
Explosive Power: Carnal Or Christian
The bombing of the Capitol was a despicable act. Experience has shown that we have little right to speculate about who did it; the assassins of the Kennedy brothers were hardly representative of most of their political opponents. We can hope, however, that the culprits are found before some future outburst results in death. And we need to recognize anew that some persons in our midst are so disaffected with our country that they have given up on normal means of winning others to their point of view. Bombings, like the tantrums of children, are among the tactics they use to dramatize their rage.
Although they arouse feelings of hostility in most of us, bombers need to be seen as persons for whom Christ died. If they knew him as Saviour and Lord, they would recognize that their hopes for a just society are not in vain, that one day Christ will reign, that one day there will be no more wars and injustice and sickness, not to mention fallible congressmen. And they will also recognize that human attempts to improve society are to be neither dependent on unrighteous methods nor judged by their success in making men better. We are to do right even when others do wrong, and even when our doing right does not bring about the desired improvement.
If those whose perverted passion for righteousness leads them to wrongdoing (in part because they have given up on achieving their goals) could only see the One who in righteousness will one day reign, their passion could be diverted into truly constructive channels. We who are Christians must never forget that before he saw the light and was converted, the Apostle Paul was as vigorous in his opposition to the Church with the means at his disposal as is any violent revolutionary of our own day.
Honesty In Government
A recent Gallup poll found that seven out of ten Americans do not think the administration is telling the people all they should know about the Viet Nam war. Certainly high government spokesmen severely undermined their credibility when they used a pipe acquired months ago in testimony before a congressional committee in a way that implied it had just been obtained from a severed pipeline along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Truth-in-advertising and truth-in-lending laws have recently been enacted. Do we need to legislate “truth-in-testimony” for the executive branch? And for that matter, don’t we need enforced laws on “truth-in-campaign-financing” for legislators?
Inadvertently we learned recently that we cannot trust what the government tells us in the event of nuclear attack. In the wake of the largely unheeded, and fortunately mistaken, notice to radio stations to go off the air because of impending attack, it was learned that radio stations years before had been instructed that, in the event of attack, they were to broadcast reassuring messages that our air force was devastating the enemy in retaliation!
Repeatedly in the Scriptures the Christian is told he must be honest and truthful, within the guidelines of love and what contributes to edification. There may be times when it is appropriate to withhold information. But for the government to attempt to deceive the people is folly. Christians in every level of government have the responsibility to be truthful in all their dealings and to correct untruth wherever possible. In this way they not only obey their Lord but help strengthen, instead of undermine, the confidence of the people in the civil authorities.
Easter: Made In Israel
Hippity, hoppity, Easter’s on its way, springing straight out of the Holy Land. Israel produced the makings of Easter well before this year’s commemoration of the event that silences the knell of death to sing of life renewed, that shatters the somber chill of winter to celebrate the emergence of spring.
The significance of Christ’s resurrection needs no seasonal reinforcement, of course, and Down Under there is none. Instead in Australia, where April is autumn, this Easter’s signs of new life are finger-lickin’ good—and made in Israel. Perhaps there is nothing strange about chocolate eggs and rabbits coming from the Holy Land to fill the Easter baskets used to observe Christ’s resurrection. But from crucifixion to confection is a remarkable hop.
Draft Defiance
On Monday, March 8, heavyweight champion Joe Frazier decisively beat Muhammad Ali, whose life in and out of the ring has been disrupted for more than three years by his efforts to avoid the draft. Curiously, that same day the Supreme Court rendered a decision that, while it did not concern Ali directly, did speak to the issue of selective conscientious objection.
Guy P. Gillette and Louis A. Negre had argued that they were opposed in principle not to all war but to the one being waged in Viet Nam. The court ruled that conscientious objectors, religious or otherwise, must be opposed to “participation in war in any form.” Objection to a specific war affords no grounds for relief from military service. The vote of the court was 8 to 1.
The decision of the high court is sound if for no other reason than that the alternative would be chaotic. However, it still leaves unanswered the question of what Christians ought to do if they conscientiously believe that a particular war is immoral. No one can dispute the fact that some wars are immoral and offensive to Christian conscience. Any Christian who feels this way about a particular war should obey his conscience and refuse to serve. When God’s law and Caesar’s are at variance, then God’s law must prevail. The Christian who so determines must then face and accept whatever penalty he is required to pay for his refusal to obey Caesar’s law if he wishes to stay within Caesar’s domain. This is suffering for righteousness’ sake. He is free not to obey, but he is not free to run away from the consequences of his disobedience. Nor is he free to presume that his decision is infallible and that other Christians who see matters differently are necessarily wrong.
Gillette and Negre, who did not base their cases on Christian grounds, lost their fight. Now let them pay the price for their convictions. Muhammad Ali lost a boxing match the same day. It remains to be seen whether he soon will lose a second and perhaps greater battle over the draft.
Labor’S Double Standard?
Organized labor relies heavily on the support of society at large. Its clout would be appreciably diminished if it did not resort to a variety of social pressures to sign up workers as members. In any office or shop where a union is recognized as bargaining agent by the employer, the individual employee most likely does not have a truly free choice on whether or not to join the union. Labor’s rationale for coercion is that everyone who benefits from collective bargaining should contribute to it.
Our society has accepted this infringement upon individual freedom, for better or worse, feeling that the benefits outweigh the loss of liberty. Unfortunately, however, labor seems lately to be reluctant to recognize its debt to society. Unions still have a long way to go in eliminating racial discrimination, but they are resisting government proposals designed to help correct biased policies and practices.
The nation’s construction unions issued a strongly worded statement last month saying they would fight government-imposed quotas on non-white workers in apprenticeship programs. We agree that quotas are probably not the answer. But isn’t it merely something of a twist on the quota principle that enables the unions to achieve a de facto closed shop? If the government shouldn’t force the unions to take in applicants it doesn’t want, why should the unions be allowed to force into membership workers who don’t want to join?
Home As A Wicked Stepmother
No Christian who travels extensively behind the Iron Curtain can return without a somber new awareness of the value of religious liberty, linked with deep compassion for fellow believers subject to harsh restrictions. Surprisingly, however, these believers seem to accept their lot with little apparent consciousness of an exile other than that common to all Christians who are strangers and pilgrims on earth.
That it is very different with the Jews of the Soviet Union has again been poignantly highlighted by a letter published last month in the Times of London from Mr. and Mrs. Valentin Prussakov of Moscow—a letter that, the newspaper said subsequently, “may be their death warrant.” The couple tell of frequent unsuccessful applications to leave for Israel, and cannot understand the official refusal to let them go. In support of an incontestable principle they cite Pravda (March 6, 1970): “Every citizen has the right freely to select his citizenship, and to live in one or another state.… This is a democratic, progressive principle.” They appeal to all people of the free world for help “to escape from a country which for us is a wicked stepmother, and depart to our spiritual home—Israel.” It is difficult to reconcile the Soviet detention of Jews legitimately wishing to leave the country with Moscow’s continued denials of anti-Semitism in any form.
An all-party motion on the plight of Jews in Russia has so far attracted the signatures of more than half of Britain’s members of parliament. On another front, it is to us inexplicable that the World Council of Churches, with all its laudable concern for the downtrodden in whitest Africa, should have made no pronouncement on this subject at its Addis Ababa meeting.
At last month’s Brussels world conference on Soviet Jewry, Simon Wiesenthal told how a French delegate to the conference was telephoned at two A.M. by a Russian Jew. “Why are you calling me at this hour?” came the demand. “Because,” said the man, “you were sleeping.”
Stoking The Flames
Bernadette Devlin, in a chapel appearance at Mercer University last month, delivered a tirade against the United States and capitalism, attributing all the world’s ills to those who disagreed with her economics. For such a simplistic diagnosis the young Irish radical got a standing ovation from the audience at the Southern Baptist school in Macon, Georgia. It is difficult to see how an academic community can justify such an approach to problem-solving. In our view, it merely fuels the flames of Miss Devlin’s equally irrational extremist adversaries.
An Invitation To Passover
A million or more Jews—along with millions of other Americans—will behold the Lamb of God on a prime-time color telecast next month, if sponsors’ hopes are fulfilled (see News, page 40). Just as Christ at the Last Supper used the occasion of the traditional Passover to communicate new spiritual realities, the special television production skillfully and tastefully superimposes those realities upon the modern practice of the Passover. In a bold—and expensive—departure from tradition, the American Board of Missions to the Jews is using a twentieth-century means to communicate Christ to the masses. We applaud the mission’s action. The project deserves evangelicals’ support, both through prayer and through gifts.
Readers may send names and addresses of Jewish friends to the American Board of Missions to the Jews, 236 West 72nd Street, New York City 10023.
Surprised By Piety
Two liberal scholars who recently completed an extensive survey of churchgoers have concluded that piety and prejudice don’t necessarily go together after all!
Dr. Thomas C. Campbell, associate professor of church and community at Chicago Theological Seminary, and Yoshio Fukuyama, professor of religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, concentrated on the United Church of Christ, which is easily one of the most liberal of American denominations. Their findings, published in The Fragmented Layman (Pilgrim Press) suggest a contrast to the famous Glock and Stark survey, which found that churchgoers were more prejudiced than non-churchgoers. According to Campbell and Fukuyama, “the devotional man in this study of a liberal denomination was more likely to favor action in the area of civil justice,” as well as in many other areas of social concern.
Campbell and Fukuyama questioned more than 8,000 churchgoers. Those who accepted a credo of religious beliefs without any personal involvement proved more prejudiced socially than those who insisted on daily devotional prayer and Bible reading as necessary parts of the Christian life.
The two sociologists, both active church members and liberals, were admittedly surprised by the results. In announcing their findings, they called for a reevaluation of and reemphasis on the devotional life of the church, “recognizing that devotionalism is often seriously questioned within churches of the more liberal Protestant type” and that “piety is very often a pejorative term and concept.”
Statistically, Campbell and Fukuyama have shown that devotionalism does not inhibit concern for social justice. But the study did not survey the actions of churchgoers, only their stated attitudes. Paper proof is not enough to prod liberals to promote “the devotional life of the church.” Without deeds to back up words, piety may remain a second-rate interest of the church.
Keeping Uncle Sam Afloat
With the April 15 federal income-tax deadline fast approaching, the following will hardly lift harried taxpayers out of the doldrums: The average American will pay more than $3.20 in taxes for every calendar day this year. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce points out that governments of all levels will collect an estimated $1,175 in taxes from each man, woman, and child in the country. That’s almost twice the per-capita figure of $628 in 1960, itself nearly double the 1950 figure of $337. In 1940, per-capita taxes were a mere $96.
Hand-wringing won’t help. But the whopping tax bite causes us to wonder how much Mr. Average Christian is spending each calendar day for advancing the Kingdom of God. A safe bet is that it’s nowhere near double what he spent in 1960, or twelve times his 1940 contributions. (Reports from forty-eight Protestant church bodies show that in 1969 their confirmed members gave an average of $99.68 during the year, just over 27 cents per day.)
If Christians upped their giving to the cause of Christ as substantially as they have been required to increase their tax dollars, maybe Uncle Sam would soon find he didn’t need such inflated levies to stay afloat.
The Fat God Gives
The Reverend Ronald Stephens, a clergyman of the Church of England, wants to be completely modern in his witness. To accomplish this he has signed a contract to film margarine commercials. Part of the script reads: “Margarine has goodness in it. And the body needs the fats of margarine as the soul needs God.”
Food imagery is not as incongruous with Christian witness as it might first appear. The Bible is filled with such imagery; Paul, for example, often compared meat to God’s Word. In Stephens’s commercial the food image has a double thrust, for it is that of fullness, of eating the fat of both physical and spiritual worlds. It reminds us that God’s goodness is evident on both these levels. As Nehemiah said to the people of Israel: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared … for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh. 8:10).
Living Proof
The early-morning light of revival has dawned upon countless thousands of persons in recent months, a morning of new life into which joy has come. In fact, the joy is so noticeable that even hard-bitten secular magazine reporters and network television producers have commented about it. It is a joy that is expressed not only in songs and smiles but also in attitudes and dispositions. And it is living proof that Jesus Christ is alive and well, for Christian joy has its source in him.
One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit is to translate the dynamic traits of Christ’s life into the personal experience of believers. Joy is among these traits (John 17:13). Through the Spirit’s husbandry it can blossom and become fruit in our lives (Gal. 5:22).
This joy transcended the sorrow of the cross (Heb. 12:2). In the same unspeakable way it can survive the deepest woes as well as the slight irritations of our earthly sojourn (Jas. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:6–8). We may not be able to explain it, but we can experience it. Its roots are in a total commitment to God.
There are, of course, many bright and clear reasons for joy. Having Jesus as a personal friend. Answered prayers. Christian fellowship. Being included in God’s plans. And even heaven shares our joy over a new birth in the household of faith (Luke 15:7).
These are conditions that evoke joyous responses in words, songs, and sanctified laughter—a welcome symphony for our otherwise rather joyless age. More importantly, beneath every true expression of Christian joy is an abiding experience (John 15:4, 11). So let’s open our souls’ windows and let the Son shine in!
