A toothache makes a man miserable whatever culture he is a part of. If he has access to a dentist, the problem is easy to solve. But if he lives in a society where dentists are scarce, or where toothaches must be endured in deference to evil spirits, his misery may be prolonged indefinitely.
Given this kind of problem, it is hard to understand, even in purely human terms, the hands-off policy held by some anthropologists. Vast numbers of human beings suffer intensely from ailments that could easily be diagnosed and cured. Part of the problem is that no one has taken the trouble to tell them of the solutions. Another part is that their cultural patterns may preclude such advice. Still another is this notion in anthropology that cultures ought not to “interfere” with one another. Does the “autonomy” of aboriginal cultures outweigh a sense of compassion for their well-being?
It is true that we cannot relieve the distress of some of the world’s more primitive peoples without tampering with their value systems. But this does not mean that other value systems should be imposed as being wholly preferable. There are no doubt some elements in primitive cultures that people in civilized countries might well emulate. The goal should not be simply to impose Western ideals but to compare insights and to test cultural patterns against one another.
Particularly disturbing is a recent statement prepared by ten South American anthropologists calling for “suspension of all missionary activity” among Indians. These ten, and one from the University of Bern in Switzerland, drafted a scathing attack on missionary work during a six-day symposium in the Barbados earlier this year. The symposium was financed by the World Council of Churches as part of its “Program to Combat Racism.” While the views do not necessarily represent those of the WCC, it is nonetheless appalling that this great global embodiment of the ecumenical movement which grew out of the overseas missionary enterprise is now reduced to funding studies on terminating missionary enterprise.
The so-called Declaration of Barbados, entitled “For the Liberation of Indians,” regards evangelization as a component of “colonialist ideology” that is “essentially discriminatory” and implies “submission in exchange for future supernatural compensations.” The “spurious quality” of evangelization is attacked, and missions are accused of having become a “great land and labour enterprise.” Until missionaries can be gotten rid of, churches are challenged to support ten suggestions ostensibly aimed at reducing exploitation. One of these calls for “true respect for Indian culture,” for missionary work is said to manifest too little “sensitivity to aboriginal religious sentiments and values.” The statement declares, “To the degree that the religious missions do not assume these minimal obligations, they, too, must be held responsible by default for crimes of ethnocide and connivance with genocide.”
The WCC should promptly dissociate itself from these opinions. At best they are gross oversimplifications, at worst a calculated attempt to undermine biblical Christianity. The declaration makes no attempts at distinctions or documentations, so one is left without a clue to the data on which the accusations are based. So sweeping are the generalizations that all missionaries become villains. Even those who gave up their lives for the betterment of their fellow men are implicitly classed with killers.
We regard this as a kind of racism in reverse, a fighting fire with fire. Under the guise of sympathy for people who have been victims of prejudice, an intensive anti-missionary sentiment emerges. Only those who agree with the political and economic presuppositions of the statement are spared from criticism.
All human beings, because of their sinful nature, have at one time or another feelings of superiority based on race, sex, professon, or some other characteristic. And certainly not all missionaries behave with the best of motives or methods. But to single out for special blame missionaries who generally have acted out of compassion when most other men didn’t care is an appalling injustice. The truth is that in the case of Indians and others, the only outside help has been that provided by selfless missionaries.
The Barbados statement invites speculation as to whether it serves to preserve the Indians’ customs and diminish discrimination against them, or whether it represents in itself a tool for exploitation of Indians. The political flavor of the document is only too apparent (not to mention the fact that it assumes its own superiority). One can only wonder whether in return for a championing of what are paraded as the Indians’ best interests, an ideological allegiance is being sought to gain political power.
The Indians of the Americas—indeed, tribal peoples the world over—desperately need friends to relieve their plight. Maybe it takes ill-conceived efforts to prod us to greater sacrifices in their behalf. But the Gospel transcends politics and demands submission only to Jesus Christ. To be sure, there is a price, but not in terms of humanity. Christ offers the greatest kind of liberation a human being can possess.
The Kennedy Center
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts opened last month in Washington, D.C., amid confusion and tears. Leonard Bernstein’s Mass, the work Mrs. Onassis commissioned to dedicate the center, brought standing ovations at each performance (see News, page 40). But the critics weren’t raving. The work is a mass, but not a mass, according to composer Bernstein; it is also about a mass. Unlike Godspell, written by Bernstein’s associate Stephen Schwartz (also Jewish), Mass regrettably hinges on humanism and sways on the verge of sacrilege.
But no matter what the meaning—or lack of meaning—of Mass, everyone agrees that the center is a major triumph for the performing arts. Although some complained that tickets were overpriced (and hard to get) and that it was a center for the middle to upper-middle class only, the entertainment for opening week ranged from hillbilly singer Merle Haggard to Metropolitan Opera tenor Nicolai Gedda to the rock group Chicago, and, in what is to be the usual practice, there were specially priced tickets for students, the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, and the military.
Many are ambitious and excited about the center’s future. Music director Julius Rudel envisions the development of a conservatory there. We share this excitement, welcome the opening of the center, and hope it will do much to foster enjoyment and appreciation of the talents God has given so many artists and composers.
Attica’S Eloquence
The confusing news out of the previously little-known town of Attica, New York, last month was extremely depressing from almost any perspective. Unfortunately, Attica is not an isolated exception; like many other such tragedies, it is an intense, compact, and bloody model of society as a whole. Men are everywhere in revolt against authority—in the Army, in the Roman Catholic Church, in colleges, in labor unions (as when the rank-and-file refuse to accept the settlements negotiated by their leaders), and not surprisingly in prisons as well.
Hostility between black and white is only accentuated behind bars. Men everywhere brutalize their fellow men. Fortunately, only a few do it quickly and visibly, and many of these get caught and incarcerated. (Others get rewarded, for a time.) Most men practice brutality slowly and invisibly. They proclaim themselves innocent of wrongdoing if they stop short of physically assaulting one another or of plundering others’ property.
But does God, whose view alone really counts, see such men as innocent? Not according to his word: “There is not a single man who is righteous.… All men have turned away from God, they have all gone wrong. No one does what is good, not even one” (Ps. 14:1–3, repeated in Rom. 3:10–12). It is striking that Christians can imploringly quote such Scriptures when thinking of the need for atonement but conveniently forget them when reflecting on tragedies like Attica. Some blame only the authorities, forgetting that, like the criminal on the cross next to Jesus, most of the prisoners are receiving punishment for their misdeeds and that the authorities have to keep order. Others heap all the blame on the prisoners, forgetting even to think of them as human beings. Christians must never forget that Jesus during his death agony dignified the repentant thief with the promise of paradise. Our Lord set the example for regarding all men as humans for whom he died. There was something about Christ that encouraged one of those criminals hanging with him to talk rather than to rail. Are those who bear the name of Christ today like this? There are some Christians and a few organizations focusing on work with prisoners. They need to be better known and widely supported, and their number needs increasing.
By their own admission, the authorities at Attica and in New York had given the prisoners many legitimate grounds for complaint. Why had they not done more to correct the causes of just grievances instead of letting them accumulate till violence broke out? Probably they would plead a shortage of money. But some reforms, those concerning attitudes, for example, may well be more difficult to achieve than bigger budgets.
The place is called the Attica Correctional Facility. Certainly “correction” is a worthwhile approach to the problem of crime. We must try to correct the criminal, to prepare him to live more in accordance with the accepted norms of society. But do the citizens in fact grant through their representatives adequate funds to make this possible at Attica? Maybe the inmates are uncorrectable. But how do we know? For it seems that whatever else the attempt to “correct” involves, it means continuing to treat the person with the dignity appropriate to humans. If the prisoner is treated in an inhumane way, how can we expect him to treat others humanely? Moreover, an institution attempting to “correct” a criminal should make every effort to see that he learns a skill, if he does not have one, with which he can make an honest living. Has this been done at Attica? In short, do Attica and the other “correctional facilities” in our land earnestly try to correct? Or do they serve instead to confirm criminals in their patterns of treating their fellow men inhumanely?
The simple—and sad—answer is that most citizens can’t be bothered to give those prisoners who are correctable a fighting chance. Certainly it would cost money, but the investment would pay for itself many times over. For every convict who gets off the treadmill of crime and imprisonment can become a taxpaying rather than a tax-supported member of society. Spending money to equip a man to take a useful role in society is good economics as well as simple humaneness.
As Christians we have the special opportunity of taking the life-transforming Gospel to men in jails and prisons. Some will be converted. As citizens we share the responsibility of seeing that our elected officials and the administrators they appoint run our “correctional facilities” so as to make as many inmates as possible into more responsible participants in an admittedly imperfect society.
Our Peaceful Pastime
Despite the excitement stirred up each year by the World Series, baseball remains a peaceful game. It tests strength and skill with little of the body contact inherent in other major sports.
Some prefer it otherwise. They complain that baseball as now played is dull and urge that the rules be changed to build in more “action.” Fortunately, majorleague officials have turned a deaf ear. We already have more conflict in our society than we can handle, without getting people all charged up in the name of entertainment. And if baseball became bloody, we could expect to see the worst effects on young boys.
Most countries emphasize sports more violent than baseball. And the fact that over many years baseball has been America’s national pastime is a tribute to this nation. It suggests that our frame of mind as a people has been essentially peaceful. May it so continue.
The Prayer Amendment
In November the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a proposed amendment to the Constitution that says, “Nothing in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer.” We think that passage of this amendment would be a mistake.
For one thing, persons already can and do voluntarily assemble for prayer in public buildings. For example, many religious groups hold meetings regularly on campuses. Congregations rent public-school facilities for small fees. Evangelists hold meetings in public stadiums. Where local authorities prohibit this, they cannot legitimately argue they do so because the Constitution forbids it. The Supreme Court has said the First Amendment prohibits government-promoted religious exercises, but it has upheld the study of religion and rights of voluntary assembly and propagation of one’s faith. By not reading these decisions carefully, many people, including government officials, have misrepresented what the Supreme Court has done to protect religious freedom.
Secondly, this amendment is hardly the way to promote a revival of true religion. Undoubtedly the backers of the amendment have worthy motives. Perhaps they wish to recapture some of the spiritual vitality that sometimes prevailed in our country’s past. Genuine piety is fostered not by government, however, but by families and individuals who practice reverence for God and obedience to him in all their activities and associations.
Finally, this amendment leaves open the possibility for some to assert that denominational prayer should not be permitted in public buildings. We must recognize that in this context “denomination” would almost certainly be interpreted to mean Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, and the like, not merely Baptist, Lutheran, or Catholic. If a group of Orthodox Jews wish to hold a prayer meeting in a public building at some suitable time, they should be allowed to do so even though Reformed Jews, not to mention Christians, would be unable to join in at least some of the petitions. Youth groups such as Campus Life or Inter-Varsity should be able to meet in schools for explicitly Christian prayers without fear that misguided authorities will say only groups praying in a way that is acceptable to all religions are now constitutional.
We urge our readers to reflect seriously on the implications of this seemingly innocent amendment and to convey their views to their representatives.
William F. Albright
The death of William F. Albright at eighty leaves a gaping hole in the field of biblical archaeology and Semitics. Longtime professor of Semitics at Johns Hopkins University, Albright was mentor for scores of graduate students who now occupy teaching positions around the world. Although he was handicapped from childhood by nearsightedness, he nonetheless read and published largely in the fields of his interest. Scholar though he was, he gave popular lectures that helped the common man to appreciate the fruits of his findings.
The archaeological research and writings of Albright did much to confirm the integrity and accuracy of the Bible. He was the first expert outside Israel to say the Dead Sea Scrolls were genuine, and in this way he contributed to the conclusion that the Masoretic text of the Old Testament Scriptures is substantially the same as that of the Scrolls.
Professor Albright has left us a legacy of scholarship, integrity, human kindness, and a flood of written works. We all are indebted to him.
Nikita Khrushchev
It is a bit ironic that even Christians say good things about bad men when they die. The temptation is particularly strong to look for things to commend in Nikita Khrushchev. Rumors have circulated for years that the Soviet leader converted to Christianity and even that he was deposed for that reason. Some claim to have traced the source of the rumors and proved them false. Others maintain a hope that they were true and that Khrushchev died a believer.
Lacking any really solid evidence to think otherwise, we can only say that Khrushchev was what he appeared to be: a man who lived and died a Communist, a faithful adherent to a miserable system that depersonalizes men and locks them into intellectual prisons by demanding conformity without the right to dissent. The jolly-good-fellow air he sometimes put on stood in contrast to the evil of which he was guilty. The system that brought him to the summit of leadership is the same system that brought about his fall and made him a nonperson, which is, after all, what any man is under the Communist life- and world-view.
To Be Or Not To Be Celibate
The third Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, which convened in Rome September 30, has as the two major items on its agenda “Justice in the World” and “The Ministerial Priesthood.” The second is for many priests a topic of pressing interest, since it concerns priestly celibacy.
Pope Paul has been cool to the notion of a married priesthood and in every public statement has come out for celibacy. Yet thousands of men have left the priesthood to marry and, at least in the United States, the majority of the priests think celibacy should be optional.
It is true that a man will have more time for his priestly duties if he is unmarried. But it is also true that the single man may still be less effective as a priest. Moreover, for many celibacy is an invitation to fornication, or at least to inner turmoil. Sanctification does not always provide clear-cut victory over normal physical desires.
Schaff in his History of the Christian Church (V, 44) says that in the eleventh century Gregory’s “enforcement of sacerdotal celibacy triumphed in the whole Roman Church, but at the fearful sacrifice of sacerdotal chastity. The hierarchical aim was attained, but not the angelic purity of the priesthood. The private morals of the priest were sacrificed to hierarchical ambition.”
Since the Scriptures do not forbid clerical marriage (indeed, they specify that the bishop is to be the husband of one wife), and since celibacy is an innovation of eleventh-century origin, one is hard put to understand what would be lost if the Pope were to open the door to marriage for the priesthood. Indeed, it may be that maintaining celibacy would be far more costly in the long run than changing the rule and allowing priests to marry.
The subject seems not unrelated to the second theme of the synod, “Justice in the World.” Many people feel that justice for the priesthood should include the right for each priest to decide for himself whether to marry or to remain celibate.
God And Man In The Aspirin Age
The Space Age is here, but for many it’s the same old Aspirin Age of headaches and worries. There are people who couldn’t care less about space capsules but couldn’t care more about the capsules in their medicine cabinets. Daily television commercials prescribe pills that stop pain while floating pressures away. There are pills to make us sleep and wake us up, pills to put us down and perk us up. Physicians are besieged by patients who have lost their patience—and who want to find in a pill brightness of spirit and tranquillity of heart and mind.
People worry and fret over a lot of things: health, work, security, money, the past, loved ones, what others think, the future. Worry, defined as excessive and immoderate concern or anxiety, makes as much sense as sitting awake in a parked car and accelerating the engine all night in preparation for a trip the next day. It’s like pedaling a bicycle that has no wheels: expending time and energy but getting nowhere.
In Matthew 6:24–34 Jesus shows the uselessness and faithlessness of worry. Life is more important than the food that keeps it going, he says, and the body is more important than what is put on it. Worry can never make life better, he indicates, only worse. It can shorten life through emotionally induced ailments. It makes life miserable for self and others. It wastes mental, physical, and spiritual resources. “Don’t fret and worry—it only leads to harm” (Ps. 37:8).
Jesus teaches us that the worrywart lacks faith (Matt. 6:30). The Father is concerned about our wellbeing; he knows our needs (6:32) and he will provide for them (6:33). The only condition is that we allow him to come to power in our lives. This involves both submission to him and trust in him. To worry is to doubt him. David, for one, endured many hours of unnecessary misery learning that God means what he says. Even though David had been given divine assurance that he would ascend to the throne, he worried as a young man over an early death at the hands of Saul (1 Sam. 27:1). We can almost smile at David’s epitaph many years later: he “died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor” (1 Chron. 29:28).
The Bible promises that God will supply all our needs (Phil. 4:19). We are exhorted to worry over nothing (Phil. 4:6) and to cast all our care on the Lord (1 Pet. 5:7). “He will keep in perfect peace all those who trust in him” (Isa. 26:3). This peace safeguards hearts and minds (Phil. 4:7), making for a healthier body and a longer, more enjoyable life.
Peace comes not from a pill but from a Person.
