A tragic and bewildering scene presents itself as Christians look toward the birthplace of their faith this Christmas season. They cannot forget God’s continuing concern for the Jews as a people, even though the Jews are now back in the land in unbelief. Since 1948 Israel has been a nation, and since the 1967 war the old city of Jerusalem has been under its control. In the process of the Jews’ return to Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were rooted out and displaced. They have become the symbol of the Arab world’s protest against this shabby treatment of some of their fellow Arabs. Our hearts go out especially to those Arab Christians who are caught between the upper and nether millstones of Zionism and Islam and who often feel that their Western Christian friends have let them down.
After Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was given a resounding ovation at the United Nations following his verbal attack on Israel and his threat to destroy it, the Washington Post rightly commented: “In this debate [the U. N. General Assembly] has shown itself to be a political and moral slag heap. One has to be grateful in retrospect to the Russians for having emasculated the Assembly long ago, so that it now has only the power to incite to murder, not actually to conduct the crime itself.”
The Israelis are in deep trouble, and their situation worsens almost daily. The recent devaluation of their money was a necessary albeit unpopular economic step. The cost of the last war was staggering, and military costs take a disproportionate amount of Israel’s budget. This tiny nation cannot let down its guard even for a moment. The Russians are supplying Syria with additional armaments that pose a serious threat to the Jews. Palestinian nationalistic uprisings are common, and terrorist attacks are a daily feature of life. Added to all of this is the fact that Israel has only the United States as a major friend and supplier. And the United States is pushing the Israeli government hard to make concessions to bring about a peace settlement that at best would probably be very fragile.
All of the Palestinian refugees could be resettled in Arab-controlled territory with Arab money secured from the Arab’s oil cartel, which threatens to bankrupt the industrial nations of the world. But so far, the refugee camps have been allowed to continue as a festering sore that will in time bring on another and perhaps far worse conflict. The Arab nations have chosen to enlarge their military forces, which causes the Israelis to increase theirs as a counterweight at a time when the Arabs have the money to do so and the Israelis are close to bankruptcy.
These are the realities of life in the Holy Land at Christmastime 1974. Christians are called upon to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but if we read the prophecies of Zechariah correctly there are hard times ahead for the Jews. We fervently wish that an enduring peace were possible; the nations should certainly put their best efforts into the quest for peace. But we are constrained to believe that there will be no permanent peace apart from the coming of the Prince of Peace. God has promised deliverance for Jerusalem, but only after that city has been surrounded and many of its people have been taken into captivity or killed (Zech. 14:1–9). At this Christmas season it is becoming more and more apparent that only the babe of Bethlehem will be Zion’s deliverer. The day will dawn when Egypt, Israel, and Assyria will be at peace and will learn war no more—when Messiah comes again.
O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel,
Chat mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear:
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee,
O Israel!
Texas Speaks Up
Regardless of what you may have heard, there are not more Baptists than people. It is true, however, that Southern Baptists outnumber all other Protestant denominations in the United States. It is also true that there are more Southern Baptists in Texas than in any other state, and this in itself means that the Texans merit a hearing at any time on any issue. We therefore have special reason to applaud the unanimous adoption by messengers to their eighty-ninth General Convention of a forthright anti-abortion resolution. In it the convention affirmed “that while we recognize that distress, unusual circumstances surrounding rape, incest, and certain other pregnancy complications exist we abhor the widespread practice of abortion, its commercialization, and exploitation by irresponsible abortion advocates.”
The resolution may go down as a milestone on the road to what anti-abortion forces hope will be a reversal of recent trends. It is perhaps significant that the case on which the U. S. Supreme Court made its permissive abortion ruling in 1973 came out of Texas, and that the victorious lawyer was herself a member of a Southern Baptist church. People think that the late John F. Kennedy resolved the religious issue in his 1960 presidential campaign with a convincing appearance before Texas Baptist clergymen and won enough votes through it to win the election. Perhaps the Texas Baptists will play a similarly crucial role in the abortion issue.
Spiritual Mbo
What are my goals and how well am I achieving them? These basic life questions are at the heart of what productivity experts call “management by objective,” and Christians might do well to make use of the MBO technique. It is all too easy to dodge the question of specific purposes. We’re trying to do the will of the Lord, but do we know what that is and how well we are succeeding?
The turn of the year is the ideal time to take spiritual inventory. What are the things that you believe God has called you to accomplish? What changes in life-style might make you more effective? What shortcomings need to be dealt with? You may not want to resort to making New Year’s resolutions, but it’s still a good idea to set specific goals for 1975 and to establish a yardstick for determining throughout the year how close to them you have come.
Special ‘Treatment’
Recently published testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on the subject of national health insurance revealed that one religion in the United States has certain privileges (including financial benefits) granted to it by federal law that no other religious body has. Representatives of Christian Science, addressing the House committee last July 2, stated that the costs of care in Christian Science sanatoriums had been included in the Federal Hospital Insurance (Medicare) program for the aged since its inception (about 1966). Now Christian Science was asking to have its visiting-nurse services also included in any legislation for national health insurance.
Sure enough, in the Medicare statute (Title XVIII of the Social Security Act) one finds:
The term “hospital” also includes a Christian Science sanatorium operated, or listed and certified, by the First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts … [Section 1861(e)].
Many people might be surprised that a movement which they thought believed in healing by prayer alone has many “sanatoriums.” More to the point is the direct question of why such facilities are mentioned at all.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …,” and yet here is a law giving to one religion the exclusive right to have its sanatoriums considered “hospitals” for Medicare payment purposes. Isn’t the granting by Congress of special privileges—by careful definition at that—to one religious body exactly what was intended by the phrase prohibiting “an establishment of religion”?
We have no reason to doubt that Christian Science sanatoriums are decent, well-run institutions for those who eschew conventional medical care. But what is to keep shysters from opening “sanatoriums” for the purpose of cashing in on tax-supported health-insurance benefits, and using the cloak of religion to avoid meeting decent standards for the care of the sick? Such people could get the courts to rule that Congress’s naming of Christian Science has to be interpreted, because of the First Amendment, to include all (or none) of the institutions with religiously distinctive ways of treating people. (Religiously related institutions that meet secular standards of medical care are of course in a different category.)
The widespread existence of essentially phony “diploma mills” in the academic world is sufficient evidence of the potential for comparable abuses in the medical field. We hope that Congress will take more careful consideration of this factor when it prepares a national health-insurance program.
The Marxist Never-Never-Land
A few weeks ago Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara, an advocate of non-violent revolution to achieve social justice, in a speech at the University of Chicago challenged contemporary Christians to “make serious and positive use of the social theories of Karl Marx.” This point of view is widespread in Latin America and is by no means limited to Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants. A number of evangelicals too are enthusiastic in their admiration for the views of Marx, except, of course, for his atheism.
However, no one can consistently adhere to traditional Roman Catholic or Protestant theology and be a Marxist. And this is true wholly apart from the fact that Marxism is atheistic. Marxism is economically and socially incompatible with the Christian faith. Moreover, it is an illogical, fanciful, utopian dream based upon illusion. Marxism promises that which it will never be able to deliver: the disappearance of classes, the elimination of the “division of labor,” the “withering away” of the state. When this happens Communism will have arrived. But as R. N. Carew Hunt says in his book The Theology and Practice of Communism:
Strictly speaking there are no such persons as Communists, because nowhere, not even in Russia, has Communism been achieved. Nor indeed will it ever be. For Russian (or Chinese for that matter) Socialism will never pass beyond State Capitalism, and all the talk of the disappearance of the state and of the future communal society in which men will work for the good of all, and coercion will no longer be necessary, is pure mythology.
Marx’s claim that historical materialism rather than spirit underlies all reality and that it provides social scientists with a tool of unfailing accuracy is foolish. And the Communists’ claim that their fundamental dogmas are guaranteed by science has yet to be demonstrated anywhere by anyone. The Marxian dictum that classes are fixed and that proletariat and bourgeoisie must ever remain in their categories and must of necessity war against each other until the bourgeoisie has been killed off makes a mockery of freedom of choice and lays on mankind a predestinarian standpoint that would outdistance any Calvinist.
Latin America needs a good dose of social justice. And Christians of all people as members of Caesar’s kingdom should work to improve society. But to suppose that the social theories of Marx provide a rational and workable way to achieve social justice is a grave mistake. The perfect society can never be brought into existence by imperfect and unperfectible men. The best solution to the problems of injustice as well as the best antidote to Marxism is for men to “make serious and positive use of the social theories” of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.
A Right To Be Unfair
Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart made some astute observations about the news media in a commencement address commemorating Yale Law School’s susquicentennial year. He stood up for the press, noting that “the publishing business is, in short, the only organized private business that is given explicit constitutional protection.”
He went on, however, to contest the widely held notion that “the only purpose of the constitutional guarantee of a free press is to insure that a newspaper will serve as a neutral forum for debate, a ‘market place for ideas,’ a kind of Hyde Park corner for the community,” saying:
If a newspaper wants to serve as a neutral market place for debate, that is an objective which it is free to choose. And, within limits, that choice is probably necessary to commercially successful journalism. But it is a choice that government cannot constitutionally impose.
Justice Stewart did not put it this way, but the point seems clear that a journal obligated to “present both sides” and to adhere to current conceptions of what is “fair” is not truly free.
Giving Versus Getting
Parents and teachers trying to put a rein on their children’s greediness often cite Jesus’ words, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Or, as the New English Bible puts it, “Happiness lies more in giving than in receiving.”
This is one of those familiar Scripture passages that we tend to honor more by word than by deed. Perhaps we are relieved that Jesus’ words are not a formal command. He could have put it into the imperative, telling us to give rather than to get. Instead, he merely tells us, as a fact, that in a very important way (blessedness or happiness) we will experience greater personal satisfaction and fulfillment by giving than by acquiring. Although this statement does not appear in a Gospel but rather is a quotation by Luke of Paul, there is no question that Jesus actually made it. In his Gospel, Luke does quote Christ: “Whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you in return” (Luke 6:38).
How widespread is the giving versus getting tension in our lives: in marriage and the home, in employer-employee relations, in local community and broader national context, even in international politics. Jesus tells us that we will be blessed in giving, but often we demand “cash in advance,” or at least a kind of guarantee from those to whom we give that the returns will justify our “generosity.” If the early industrial society was obsessed with the idea of increasing production, our own late industrial age seems obsessed with consumption. Not only do people want to consume rather than share, but the very foundations of production are based on the assumption—so often true—that no one will share durable goods with his neighbor, and that production and consumption can therefore be counted on to rise correspondingly. And when our desire to consume exceeds our willingness to work to produce, we find ourselves in an economic crisis. Is not our present “stagflation” traceable in large measure to greediness?
Christians of all people should be deeply aware that not only material blessings but life itself, in this world and the world to come, are gifts and trusts from God. What an impact on the general culture we would make if we began to live and act as though we really believed it! Regrettably, the Church has its own problems, with its members continually asking, “What does that church have for me?” “What do I get out of identifying with that group?” Believers could make no better resolution for the new year than to put to the test Jesus’ words, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
