War On Statistics
As the new American Congress girds up its loins to meet the challenges of our era, one high-priority item is the matter of gun control. Dozens of bills, ranging from the mere expression of pious wishes to Draconian severity, have already been introduced on this popular subject. Eutychus would scarcely venture to oppose something that has such good intentions behind it. On the other hand, since gun control has taken on the nature of a crusade (and we all know how bad the Crusades were), and since it is largely justified by crime statistics, it may be well to point out a few perplexing facts.
There is indeed a high crime rate in the United States, and not least among the crimes committed here is murder, which occurs at a rate of 8.5 per 100,000. Of the murders, just about half are committed with guns (4.21 per 100,000). Therefore we have more than 8,000 such murders per year. Perhaps we could reduce the number of gun murders by making guns harder to obtain. (There appear to be even more gun suicides per year, according to World Health Organization statistics, but presumably suicides would go on even without guns.) Of course, even in the absence of guns murder probably would not cease, for some people are killed without guns (France, for example, has a murder rate of 3.2 per 100,000, but only 0.24 are committed with guns).
There are approximately 100,000,000 handguns supposedly in private possession in the United States. That would be a lot to collect. We can assume that it would be harder to collect them from the violence-prone than from meek and inoffensive gun-owners who seldom resort to using them anyway. Hence reducing guns in circulation by, say, half, or 50,000,000 would not necessarily reduce the gun murder rate by half. Even in countries with stringent firearms controls, such as West Germany and Northern Ireland, terrorists and criminals still seem able to get all they need. So while we do not question the desirability of better gun control, we would caution against thinking that even a law requiring confiscation will necessarily produce a significant improvement in the quality of life (or manner of death) in America.
Since lawmakers are influenced by statistics, one other group makes interesting material for reflection. A rate of 8,000 murders per year committed with 100,000,000 handguns means 8 murders per 100,000 guns, almost exactly the same as the murder rate for the population as a whole; this means that, facing a person or a gun, one is almost exactly as likely to be killed by the person as killed with the gun. On the other hand, the motor-vehicle death rate is 27.6 per 100,000,000 (U.S. Public Health Service). Since there are about 120,000,000 automobiles registered in the United States (1972), this means 23 killings per 100,000 cars, or almost three times as many deaths per available car as deaths per available gun. Since cars are therefore three times as dangerous as guns, and since all of us are surrounded by cars, we should be very anxious, until we recall that, unlike the really dangerous drivers, the really dangerous gun-owners keep their weapons where we cannot see them (the shark has pretty teeth, dear …).
These statistics have not been sufficiently well analyzed to permit us to draw fully binding conclusions from them, but at the very least it should be evident that only sweeping measures need be considered, and that even then we should not expect results overnight.
For Orientation
I found the articles in the February 14, issue, for the most part, to be excellent in content style. They came at a crucial moment for me as an educator in a Bible college. I recommend that reprints of “Can a Seminary Stand Fast?” by Harold O. J. Brown and “Guidelines For Prospective Seminarians” by Andre Bustanoby be made available as soon as possible. Both these articles should be very valuable to a wide spectrum of Bible colleges and seminaries in their orientation programs.
Registrar and Professor
Foundations Bible College
Dunn, N. C.
I was impressed with the scope and sensitivity toward seminary students in Bustanoby’s article, “Guidelines For Prospective Seminarians.” Due to the increasing numbers of women who are now attending or planning to attend seminaries, I feel the author needs to broaden his base of reference to include all persons interested in seminaries, not just men. His guidelines are applicable to all people. Why use words that limit his writing to include only the male gender of our population?
St. Paul, Minn.
It seems to me that a seminary board and faculty must decide whether the school will be a professional school of ministry or a graduate school of theology.… The professional school of ministry would aim at training men and women for the pastoral ministry. There would be a small core faculty to head each department. The bulk of the faculty would be persons invited to campus for a week, a month or a semester.… The graduate school of theology would be just that. A strong faculty of theologians brought together to “grow” theologians. There is a serious dearth of theologians coming along because there is no real place in America for such a growth process to take place. The students in such a school would not be forced to take courses that would be meaningless to them. They would have the time for serious contemplation, reading and discussion.
First Baptist Church
Ballston Spa, N. Y.
Harold Brown’s article asks a crucial question. The history of theological education in the United States shows that the answer has been “no.” Brown correctly identified several elements which have historically been part of the spiritual vitality of evangelical seminaries.… My study of the history of theological education suggests a fourth.… A dynamic seminary-church relationship has been part of the secret. Historically, those seminaries for which there has been a trusting relationship with the churches have been strong in faith and productive in the practical ministry. But the passion for ministering can easily be replaced either by dogmatic particularism or by latitudinarian toleration. Neither extreme is useful, and either one can precede overt departures from the faith.
Assistant to the President
Roberts Wesleyan College
Rochester, N. Y.
Surely for Brown to support the statement that “Fuller too has undergone a shift in emphasis” by speaking of “the exasperated departure of several of its best-known conservatives” is terribly unbalanced. There are many reasons why a teacher may become exasperated, not all of which have to do with the theological posture of a seminary. On the other side one could have noted that “several of its best-known conservatives” remained at the seminary; and then the names of Geoffrey Bromiley, Everett Harrison, and Wilbur Smith could be listed. Dr. Smith retired honorably at the compulsory age of sixty-nine and while he has taught since at other schools, demonstrated his good faith in Fuller by donating to the school his personal library of more than 40,000 volumes.
A further implication of Brown’s article is that Harvard Divinity School, Princeton, Andover-Newton Seminary, and Fuller Seminary are all the same sort of school, which, in the eyes of someone who has been involved in some way with all four schools, is certainly not so.
The Grantham Church
Grantham, Pa.
Losing Ardor
As an ardent reader and admirer of CHRISTIANITY TODAY I could hardly believe that you would accept for publication the advertisement that appears on page 3 of the February 28 issue.… Could the publishers and management staff actually believe that the medical profession in the United States, the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, the AMA, etc. would actually suppress a proven cancer therapy? Worse yet, cancer victims grasping at any possible ray of hope will frequently, after reading material like this, seek the unproven treatments and at the same time delay in the use of known valuable modalities of therapy.… You have lost a good deal of my respect in the quality of your publication by accepting this ad, and I am sure this could also be said for many other of your professional readers.
Ridgewood, N. J.
No Muzzling
Your lead news story, “The Muzzling of Christians in Korea” (Jan. 31), must have the most direct possible challenge. Since the article attempts to separate the Communist involvement or Marxist sympathizers from the genuine Christians you are contributing to the deception and disruption that the Communists are seeking to perpetrate. Especially you confirm the way in which the Communists desire to exploit the Christians and now the evangelicals.
It is most significant that the article is totally devoid of any substantive information about what the Communists are doing in this field of religion and how it is their primary function to discredit and if possible remove President Park Chung Hee. I can speak with firsthand information both from the standpoint of our Christians in Korea and also from the standpoint of the government. The office of the International Council of Christian Churches which we maintain in Seoul and the Korean Council of Christian Churches, which is affiliated with us, report that there is no religious persecution and no muzzling of Christians in South Korea.
International Council of Christian Churches
Collingswood, N. J.
