The Third World is receiving lots of publicity. We hear of oppression, extreme poverty, and malnutrition. We also hear conflicting explanations why such suffering exists. A common explanation—probably assertion would be a better term—is continually made, and not uncommonly to Christian audiences.
We are told, in essence, that poor countries are poor because rich countries keep them that way. The plight of the Third World, say exponents of that view, is due to an economic system under the control of countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean (together with some others such as Japan and Australia). Christians and other ethically sensitive people are reported to feel embarrassment and shame because the rich countries are oppressing poor countries.
We can readily understand why poor countries feel the need to blame others for their predicament. After all, comparatively rich nations also blame others for the problems that they have. What is true for countries is also true for individuals.
However, nothing is gained by hurling blame on others. Instead, efforts should be directed toward squarely facing the facts of poverty and then doing what one can about them. A key fact is that most of the poorer nations have been poor for centuries. Moreover, only a few centuries ago the nations that are considered rich today were also poor.
It is often asserted that colonialism effected a vast transfer of wealth. But there are few parallels to the massive removal of gold to Spain from what is now Peru. It is far more common to find material conditions having improved in colonized lands from what they were before conquest. This end does not justify the means. But it should make us hesitate before blaming colonialism for the problems of poor nations.
Nor was colonialism essential to prosperity. Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Japan are rich despite little or no help from colonies. Indeed, in the cases of Spain, Portugal, and, increasingly, Britain, the achievement of great colonial empires has not proved to be a permanent guarantor of prosperity. The British administration of India, for example, did more for that sub-continent than it would have done for itself. There are studies indicating that it cost Britain more than she received in return to administer and protect her empire.
A resolution of one of the problems of poor countries rests with them—that is, reversing the growth in population. In 1950 the population of Latin America was about 165 million. By 1977 this had more than doubled to 342 million. In 1950 the population of Africa was some 220 million. By 1977 it too had more than doubled to over 450 million. In India the figure was 382 million in 1950 and 642 million in 1977.
Various attempts have been made by the developed nations to help developing ones. But much of that has meant little because of uncontrolled population growth. Gains in agricultural technology by the poor nations at best did no more than keep pace with the growing populations; in some cases they are worse off.
Moreover so far as the future is concerned expert predictions portray a situation for the poorer nations that will worsen. Limiting the population growth should be a major policy of poor countries. When a rate of growth is 2 per cent per year a country will double its population in thirty-five years. When the growth rate is 3.5 per cent the population will double in only twenty years.
Consider Mexico, where the population is growing at a 3.5 per cent rate. In 1950 its population was about 27 million. By 1977 it had passed 62 million. If unchecked by the year 2000 it will be 125 million, and twenty years later it will be more than 250 million. In less than seventy-five years the population of Mexico will be greater than the projected population of the United States, assuming the rates in both countries continue as they are. The United States has a land area nearly five times that of Mexico. Is it any wonder that so many Mexicans illegally enter the United States each year?
There is no way that rich nations can force poor nations to control their population growth. Even suggestions that they do so often lead to irrational cries of genocide and racism.
So long as population growth remains unchecked, it is unlikely that any combination of helpful or harmful actions by the richer nations will really have much effect, no matter how beneficial or repressive. Rather than blame their poverty on others, poor countries should take immediate and continuing steps to stabilize their populations.
Carter And Marston
President Carter has had a lot of important things on his mind, and the fate of the federal prosecutor in Philadelphia, who until recently was David Marston, cannot be high on his priority list. It ought to be, for we think he acted unethically in dismissing Marston.
It is apparently routine when presidents take office for the U.S. attorneys of the opposing party to resign. If the appointee doesn’t do that, then he or she is fired. But President Carter said that he wouldn’t conduct politics by what used to be acceptable behavior. He won primaries and then the election in part because he promised to bring a new approach to governing. He specifically promised to remove the Department of Justice (and the U.S. attorneys who serve in it) out of the clutches of political favoritism and protectionism. Quite apart from the merits of the Marston affair, we ask what the President has done to fulfill that promise. We think that to have broken with the past by repudiating the tradition that disallows prosecutors from being of a different political party would have been a good way to begin. In many other ways President Carter has felt free to ignore the old rules. Why not this practice also?
Many people have faulted him for not being particularly concerned about stroking senators and representatives, though we have not done so. He has been criticized for being too forthright in speaking up for human rights instead of being diplomatic with brutal rulers. Although he has largely backed down because of the howl from Capitol Hill, he tried to cut back severely on the pork-barrel dam building projects that presidents and congressmen traditionally love.
But even if one grants the propriety of the President continuing the old custom, he should not have fired Marston once he learned that Representative Joshua Eilberg, a Democrat, was under investigation by Marston’s office. President Carter’s embarrassment at reversing the decision to fire Marston would have been a small price to pay for avoiding the appearance of a cover-up.
If Eilberg were innocent, he had nothing to fear from Marston, even if the prosecutor was a bit too aggressive and politically ambitious. With few exceptions, U.S. juries in recent years have not convicted people who have been charged from apparently political motives. If Eilberg is guilty then the investigation has been hampered and perhaps derailed. There is enough political corruption without President Carter seeming to be indifferent to it.
It is irrelevant that the President was unaware that Eilberg was under investigation when the congressman phoned him. What matters is how the President acted once he did find out. He has changed his mind before when new facts came to light; he should have changed it in this case.
At least one can hope that the publicity surrounding this episode will cause Marston’s successor to vigorously pursue the investigation of Eilberg. And perhaps U.S. attorneys in the future will not resign or be fired when a president of a different party takes office.
He Made Religion Readable
A news flash on Scottish radio one afternoon last month gave a report quickly passed throughout the country: “Willie Barclay’s dead.” It stunned even those with no known faith whose attention had been caught through one of Barclay’s gripping television presentations. When CHRISTIANITY TODAY had interviewed him two years ago and asked him about them and how he did it, Barclay said he always had in mind a man about to read his Sunday newspaper. “My job,” he said simply, “stop him!” Through his books also (sales about seven million) he communicated the Christian faith as few in modern times have done. It was said of him, as it was of C. S. Lewis, that he had made righteousness readable.
A bank manager’s son born seventy years ago in Wick, he was ordained in 1933 and for thirteen years served a parish on industrial Clydeside where his members were largely shipyard and factory workers. In 1946 he was invited to become lecturer in New Testament at Glasgow University and was promoted to a professorship in 1964. His lectures were as lucid as his public appearances on the media and his Daily Study Bible, which was translated into ten foreign languages. Students esteemed him as a warmhearted counselor and friend. Barclay enjoyed a joke against himself. A woman had once asked the location of his church. “I don’t have a church at the moment,” he replied. “Never mind,” she said comfortingly to the veteran communicator, “I’m sure you’ll get one soon.”
Soon after his retirement from Glasgow in 1974 he was appointed to a visiting professorship at Strathclyde University (a largely technical institution) to analyze professional ethics in the business world. Barclay’s theological outlook was that of a liberal universalist, but (unlike many liberals) his tolerance extended to evangelicals, many of whom have been the beneficiaries of his thoughtfulness and courtesy.
Combating Conversions
The spread of legalized gambling is a fact of contemporary American life. But more and more leaders are coming to realize that it is not a fact to be celebrated. Perhaps the arrival of casinos in Atlantic City this year has awakened some people along the eastern seaboard who previously thought that the gambling menace was confined to Nevada. New Jersey’s approval of casino operations and the establishment of lotteries from Maryland to New England have demonstrated that state-approved games of chance are not just the domain of Las Vegas.
Advocates of legalized gambling argue that illegal rackets, often directed by criminal syndicates, flourish when there is no legal way to bet. The nation’s capital, for instance, still has not legalized gambling. But Brant Coopersmith, head of a citizens’ commission studying such a scheme for the District of Columbia, reported that “numbers is a part of the life of this city.” He proposed that city sponsorship of betting would “guarantee an honest game, a fair payout, and make money for the District of Columbia at the same time.”
Some of the city’s black pastors are upset at the proposal. Since they are close to many of the potential victims of the gambling—the poor of the community—they know what it will mean for these people. They think that gambling is not only immoral but that it is a form of regressive taxation hurting the poor. These pastors have considerable influence at the District Building, Washington’s city hall. They recently got Mayor Walter Washington to veto a measure that would have reduced penalties for drug offenses: They have also been speaking out against proposed legislation sought by the homosexual community.
Another new entry into the gambling fray is Maryland Churches United, a council of Protestant and Orthodox bodies. Their state’s lottery is attempting to entice customers with the slogan, “It’s O.K. To Play,” and the council people don’t like that. They believe it conveys the message that gambling is morally acceptable. Lottery boosters say it means that participation is legal and not under the control of criminal bosses. Members of congregations across the state are being asked to sign a petition that states, “We believe that it is morally wrong for the state of Maryland to mount aggressive publicity campaigns designed to convert Maryland citizens into gamblers. Specifically, we object strenuously to the state lottery agency’s slogan, ‘It’s O.K. To Play.’ ”
Conversion is what this battle is all about. Increasing numbers of church leaders see that the forces of evil are trying, with official sanction, to convert their communities. They also realize that the people for whom they are concerned are about to become victimized by some of the so-called victimless crimes. Beyond the spiritual issue they see the great social costs. This is good; we just hope it is not too late. Concerned people of all theological viewpoints should support one another in the effort to halt the spread of gambling—legal or illegal.
United Presbyterians And Homosexuality
The United Presbyterian Church has gone through a ten-year period of declining church and Sunday school enrollments. As just one indicator of slipping vitality, its missionary force overseas has declined by about 60 per cent. Now a new and threatening shadow promises added turmoil and division.
At stake is the recommendation of a special task force appointed by the highest organ of the denomination, the General Assembly, to ordain “self-affirmed” homosexuals. The nineteen-member task force voted fourteen to five in favor of the ordination of “practicing homosexuals if the person manifests such gifts as are required for ordination.” A minority report was filed by the five dissenting members, which argued in effect that practicing homosexuals are living in sin. The minority respectfully but firmly stated the biblical view; “homosexuality is not God’s wish for his children.… Even where the homosexual orientation has not been consciously sought or chosen, it is neither a gift of God nor a state or condition like race; it is the result of man’s fallen condition.…”
In general, the entire task force agreed that, as has been customary, ordination procedures belong to the jurisdiction on the district level (called the presbytery) not to the nationwide General Assembly. However, seeking to confine the question of homosexual ordination to the district level would seem to be in direct conflict with the recent controversy involving the attempted ordination of Walter Kenyon. (See Jan. 31, 1975, issue, p. 30.) In that case the highest judicial court of the denomination overruled the Pittsburgh Presbytery that had agreed to ordain Kenyon. Kenyon’s “sin,” by the way, was to believe that he could not conscientiously participate in the ordination of women to the ministry, in accordance with what he believes is biblical teaching. He was willing to serve with them in the denomination. Nevertheless, his ordination was revoked.
The Presbyterian Book of Order (1976–1977, Section 44.10) clearly states that “To the General Assembly also belongs the power of deciding in all controversies respecting doctrine and the interpretation of the Constitution of the Church; of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine or immorality in practice in any church, presbytery, or synod.…”
If certain presbyteries do start ordaining admitted and practicing homosexuals, appeal can (and should) be made to the General Assembly. Despite the recommendation of the majority of the task force to keep the matter on the presbytery level, there appears to be no way, short of amending the denomination’s constitution, that appeal to the General Assembly’s permanent judicial commission could be averted.
When the issue comes to the floor of the annual meeting of the General Assembly this May in San Diego, it may adopt the recommendation of the majority of the task force, it may rule against the ordination of practicing homosexuals, or it may try to postpone the issue by appointing yet another commission to restudy the case or some similar strategem. We think that the issue is extremely important. Moreover, the opposing views are based upon just about all the information that can be expected to be accumulated. Therefore, the General Assembly ought to decide clearly one way or the other.
No case can be made from Scripture for endorsing the practice of homosexuality. Both the Old and the New Testaments witness against this kind of lifestyle. One might as well endorse heterosexual promiscuity. Is the ordination of admitted and practicing adulterers next on the agenda of some United Presbyterians?
Up to this point no other major denomination has accepted homosexuality as a valid and biblical lifestyle. If the United Presbyterians take this step it is likely that other prominent denominations would follow. We can think of no better way to guarantee division and the further erosion of any denomination.
Those Who Die in the Lord
Recently one of our editors attended a funeral; we share his reflections with our readers.
I went to a memorial service for the wife of a long-time friend who spent her last few years in a nursing home. My mind strayed from the service, traveling a different road in a mood of contemplation.
I thought of the soul of this sister, which had been caged in an infirm body; now it was free. It was temporarily unclothed that later it might be reclothed in an immortal body fit for an immortal soul. The new body would be deathless, disease-free, perfect in all of its parts, and in need of no repairs forever.
I thought of the closed eyes. They would see no more until that moment when they shall be opened to see the new world and behold the radiant faces of the saints of all ages. Then she would see also the saint of saints, the Lord Jesus, and his hands and feet that forever bear the marks of his passion.
Her lips were sealed and could speak no word of either praise or criticism. But they would later be unsealed and devoid of all defilement. No unkind word, no impure thought, no word of condemnation or of bitterness should be spoken or heard through the halls of houses or in the streets of the city.
The hands were folded; their work was done. But they shall be unfolded when spirit and body are rejoined and labor shall begin again. It will not be work for a lifetime but rather work for endless ages. Its purpose shall be the glory of the Redeemer and its recipients shall be the sons and daughters of the kingdom who shall then truly love their neighbors as they love themselves.
There was no way the corpse could rise and walk from the coffin to the streets of the city of man. But those feet would some day walk again in eternity. They would carry my sister along the streets of the heavenly city, which are paved with gold. They would carry her along the banks of that river of the water of life. They would never bring her to cathedral or tower or church; they would carry her to the throne of God before whom she would bow in adoration and praise to the Lamb that was slain for her salvation.
She had heard the summons that comes to those who love the Lord and she was no longer with us. Although dead, she seemed to be speaking. I heard her voice and was comforted, for she was echoing the words spoken to John long ago: “Blessed indeed are the dead who die in the Lord” (Rev. 14:13).
