Back in his Air Force days, a CHRISTIANITY TODAY staff member, serving as a squadron adjutant, got some unusually good advice from his commander. The counsel came consistently when the two faced complex decisions that would entail problems no matter what course of action they chose. It was simply, “Do something!”
Any capable leader knows that no step at all can often cause more trouble than even a step in the wrong direction. The latter at least furnishes the information of what not to do in the future. Failure to take a step does not provide even that.
The “do something” principle cannot be recommended to irresponsible people. But for responsible ones, faced with a sticky situation, to move quickly is often better than to stand still and wait. A good example of this comes from the founder of the Sunday-school movement, Robert Raikes, of Gloucester, England. Distressed by the “lawless behavior” of children on the streets of Gloucester on Sundays, he set up a Sunday school in Sooty Alley, hiring women to instruct the children in reading and the church catechism. Raikes did not wait for a church committee or an annual denominational meeting to get going. He saw the need and moved decisively to meet it.
In attempting to speak about Sunday-school problems, we realize that different churches have different problems, and that what works at, say, First Baptist in Sacramento will not necessarily work at Second Presbyterian in Syracuse. Clergy and laity alike will be helped most if they take the principles that appear in these pages and in other books and articles about the Sunday school and use them in an imaginative mix suited to their particular situation.
The simple advice to “do something” may be more valuable than it might initially seem. In many Sunday schools today, the number-one problem is apathy. The program has settled into a deep rut. Goals have not been updated for years. No attempts are made to measure success. And no one is greatly concerned.
One determined person, whether the pastor or a layperson, can do something, can bring about some change. It takes perseverance and a deep sense of obedience to God’s direction, achievable only through prayer.
Whoever takes on the challenge should go about it as intelligently as possible. But he should not be deterred by doubts about his intellectual qualifications and preparation. That can be a trick of the enemy to hinder beneficial change. In the face of obstacles, tact, combined with a positive attitude inspired by the Holy Spirit, can work wonders.
A recent how-to book for the Sunday school asserts that in most churches the greatest obstacle to change is the lack of an adequate rationale for it. (Your Sunday School Can Grow, by Lowell E. Brown with Bobbie Reed, Gospel Light/Regal, 1974). “It is always difficult to get people to change when they are not convinced that the change is needed.” A process of explanation and encouragement is essential. The place to begin is to ask leaders to communicate what they believe about good education and why, and to show how changes will benefit all concerned.
The one abiding principle that should be kept in the forefront of discussion is that the Sunday school exists for training. If a Sunday school is attended by a lot of unbelievers, the training should center on evangelism. If those who attend are largely Christians, the program should be focused upon teaching the Word and helping people relate it to their lives. The innovator must analyze the spiritual state of those who are to be taught and proceed accordingly.
In recent years there has been a great deal of promotion of the discussion rather than lecture approach to learning. The idea is that students learn more thoroughly and lastingly that which they get at themselves through discussion than that which they hear from a teacher. There is merit to this approach. But we may have gone overboard. If a teacher is well prepared, he has a lot to offer students that they cannot arrive at through group discussion, which sometimes amounts to little more than a sharing of ignorance. Perhaps we need to stride a better balance between the two approaches, taking into account what the Bible has to say about teaching as a spiritual gift.
Here are some ideas worth considering if you want to do something for your Sunday school: (1) Teach the catechism. Every child should be exposed to it somewhere along the teaching route, and it would be helpful for adults as well. (2) Pay teachers. This might mean there would be fewer teachers, but it is better to sit fifty feet from a good teacher than one foot from a poor one. (3) Train teachers, and have them meet in advance of the Sunday session to discuss the lesson, exchange suggestions for making the teaching count, and evaluate the previous Sunday’s session. (4) Require teachers to follow up on absentees, visit pupils’ homes, and in the case of children attempt to enlist the parents as Sunday-school participants. (5) Provide a good social program for all ages. (6) Consider sending buses to bring pupils to the Sunday school. (7) Provide refreshments before or after Sunday school. (8) Integrate the work of the Sunday school with other church programs so that they complement and reinforce each other. (9) It’s your turn:
The Indochina Fiasco
It is safe to say that had America known in the beginning what it knows now, it would not have sent armed forces to Viet Nam. Given the present climate, perhaps it would not even have supplied military aid. But the fact is that the government of the United States, with the approval of four presidents and the congresses that voted the money, did commit the nation to involvement on a huge scale.
The Bible speaks approvingly of those who swear to their own hurt and change not. However, those who realize they have made bad decisions can change their minds instead of obstinately sticking to their original path. The United States properly, in our opinion, withdrew its troops but continued its involvement with military aid. Now congressional opposition is bringing this to a halt. There is no hard evidence that the unexpected collapse of the South Vietnamese forces was directly caused by inadequate supplies. Nor is there much excuse for the failure of Thieu’s armies to fight instead of panicking and fleeing in wild disorder.
At a time when the United States was decreasing its aid to the governments it supported, the Soviets and the Chinese were increasing their supply of weapons to Hanoi. They have not faltered in their commitment, and what they did turned the tide in favor of the Communists. Strangely enough, many Americans who so strongly opposed U. S. involvement and were successful in their battle for withdrawal are silent in the face of the Communists’ flagrant violation of the Paris agreement and the death of so many civilians. Probably most Americans who long opposed support of the Diem and later the Thieu regime regret the use of force instead of free elections to bring a change in government. Undoubtedly only a few are led by pro-Marxist sympathies to welcome Hanoi’s victories.
The Bible demands morally consistent behavior, but the United States has been inconsistent. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger claimed to bring détente into being, and Washington cosied up to Peking and Moscow. Whatever “détente” means, it obviously did not mean that the communists would stop sending supplies to Hanoi. If it is desirable to have detente with China and Russia, why not let the Communists take over South Viet Nam and perhaps all of Indochina and then seek detente with them? Nations reap as they have sown. The United States with its inconsistency in policies has sown the whirlwind, and it will reap the whirlwind.
Sir Robert Thompson, a British expert on Asia observed: “The administration can no longer conduct a credible foreign policy. But do not worry, a new policy line already has been laid down by Congress: If you surrender, the killing will stop. It is a clear message, to the world, of the abject surrender of the United States” (quoted in the Washington Post, April 9, 1975). He also said, while public and congressional opinion loudly denounced permanent U. S. commitments in Indochina: “Eternal dishonor is a permanent commitment.” This is the load America will have to carry for years to come. Other European observers, however, have long expressed the view that America’s prolonged involvement was more dishonorable than any end to it could be.
America’s allies will loudly proclaim their confidence that the nation will not welsh on its commitments to them in Europe and the middle East. What else can they do under the circumstances? But we can be sure that the chancelleries of the world are not so naïve as to rely on that certainty, and that they are already making plans in the event the United States reverses its pledges to them. What is most distressing is that the U. S. Congress, apparently acting in accord with what it thinks to be the wishes of the citizenry, is in effect telling the whole world that nations like China and the Soviet Union are more dependable allies and more to be trusted for their pledges than “decadent capitalist America.”
It looks as if peace will come to Indochina by Communist conquest after some kind of bloodbath against the enemies of Hanoi. We have a strong moral obligation to provide sanctuary for those whose close link with the United States or the governments it supported marks them as likely targets for execution by the Communists. The peace that comes will not be “peace with honor” for the United States. It will be a peace stained by desertion and defeat, one that is bound to have further unfavorable repercussions in the years ahead.
Chiang Kai-Shek
Although his advanced age made death no surprise, a special sadness befits the death of Chiang Kai-shek. He was a determined leader to the end, though undoubtedly brokenhearted and bitter that so much of the world ultimately decided to pass him by in favor of his Communist foes who ruled the mainland of China, a vast land that he for so long tried to organize and ally with the West.
Many have taken issue with Chiang, associating him, not without justification, with a great assortment of wrongs. Even Time magazine, which under the late Henry Luce did much to build Chiang’s American image, sharply criticized him in its obituary, citing his “intractable insistence on shortsighted, ineffective policies.”
But one cannot help wondering whether the disenchantment with Chiang is attributable less to his wrongs than to disappointment over his failure to achieve what was expected. And perhaps too much was expected.
Here was the largest nation on earth, virtually unmanageable politically at the beginning of this century. Sun Yat-sen and Chiang made an extraordinarily ambitious effort to pull China together, and went a long way toward their goal. It is very doubtful, in fact, that the Communists could have set up a government had they not been able to build upon the years of spadework under Chiang—and also upon his weaknesses. To his credit, Chiang conceded blame:
I must put the blame on myself. The disastrous military reverses on the mainland were due not to the overwhelming strength of the Communists but to the organizational collapse, loose discipline and low spirits of the [Nationalist] party members.
Chiang as a middle-aged man was baptized a Methodist, and in the 1940s he was described as “Christendom’s most famous living convert.” He championed a “New Life Movement” that had a spiritual as well as political orientation; although it accommodated Confucian perspectives, it was based on Christian principles as Chiang saw them. The Chinese leader became known for his simple, almost austere life style and for his daily meditation and Bible reading. He obviously saw the good that missionaries had done for his people over the years. Yet he repeatedly shunned good advice, for whatever reason, and he died a beaten man.
More Orphans
The outpouring of sympathy for Vietnamese orphans is commendable. Many of them are the offspring of American soldiers and Vietnamese women and hence are of mixed ancestry. That this consideration and the unknowable emotional scars the children bear have not deterred thousands of Americans from wanting to adopt them is noteworthy.
To the families applying for Vietnamese orphans who are turned away because there are no more available, we suggest an alternative. Approximately 120,000 children in the United States are waiting to be adopted. Like the Asiatic Vietnamese, most of these children are not of northern European stock. Their ancestry is mainly African, American Indian, and Puerto Rican. Many have physical handicaps, and others are emotionally disturbed. But it is doubtful that raising these children will be any more difficult, or less fulfilling to adoptive parents, than raising Vietnamese.
This is not to say there will not be problems. Bringing up any children, whether they are one’s own biological offspring or not, is a challenging undertaking. Ethnic differences create additional problems, especially in the larger community.
But Christians belong to a subcommunity, the Church, that according to its authoritative Scripture transcends ethnic, racial, and socio-economic differences. They are in a better position than unchurched families to adopt children of different ethnic origins, for they can supply them with a supportive group, the family of God. Best of all, Christians are more likely to introduce their adopted children to the one who alone heals for eternity all the hurts human beings inflict upon one another.
Debatable Behavior
The role of women in the home and in the church from a biblical point of view is currently a popular topic, and one that it is important to resolve. The eastern region of the Evangelical Theological Society thought so too, and at its meeting in Philadelphia this month members considered the question from both the traditional and the more feminist positions. Without commenting on the central question itself, we would like to make a point about the desirable spirit for a debate of this kind.
Persons on both sides of the issue have a responsibility to present their case with thorough theological and biblical evidence. It is not enough to say “the Bible says” without showing what the Bible actually records on this question and where. Both feminists and traditionalists have scriptural evidence to cite. There is little excuse for offhand or theologically sloppy discussion, and there is no excuse at all for discourtesy and disrespect toward the other side.
At the ETS meeting the more traditional theologians did not appear to take the issue as seriously as it deserves. And groans and moans during a controversial presentation showed a disturbing lack of professionalism on both sides.
We urge scholars and theologians to do their homework, study all sides of the question, and present their arguments in a logical, rational and serious way. The outcome of this debate could change the complexion of church and home.
Crime: Emphasizing Deterrence
Serious crime in the United States rose 17 per cent in 1974. This was the largest annual increase since the FBI began keeping records forty-five years ago. Washington, D. C., and its suburbs reported an overall 14.7 per cent rise; the increase in the suburbs was more than twice that in the city. The largest regional increase was recorded in the southern states: 21 per cent in 1974.
United States attorney general Edward H. Levi saw in the figures “a dismal and tragic failure on the part of our present system of criminal justice,” and he went on to say, “We must understand that an effective criminal justice system has to emphasize deterrence.”
“Emphasize deterrence”—how?
The increasing crime rate supports the observation that the claims of our Judeo-Christian tradition with its emphasis on the Ten Commandments have lost their hold on much of society. Let’s ponder some other statistics. In 1974, 112 million Americans were attached to Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and other congregations. (The figure is for “inclusive” membership; full communicant or confirmed membership would be less than half of this.) This means that 98 million Americans had no identifiable connection with any of these churches. Canada, with a population of 22 million, reports a current figure of 3 million church-related people.
This leads to a question for which we can only assume an answer: What percentage of crimes are committed by people who have no church connections? It has been said that few people who start out in Sunday school end up in jail. Whether or not this is so, and we suspect it is, certainly the 98 million Americans who are unchurched are a missionary challenge. When we add to these the unregenerate among the “churched,” this large mission field becomes immense.
As the attorney general pointed out, our system of criminal justice has shown “a dismal and tragic failure,” and concerned Christians may well involve themselves in efforts to improve our laws, our courts, and our prisons. Or they may choose to concern themselves with the social conditions that foster crime. But Christians can go beyond these good endeavors because they know the root cause of crime, that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” There lies the most dismal and tragic failure of all, and there is the place where Christians have a special responsibility beyond that of their fellow citizens. The surest way to keep a person from committing a crime is to win him or her to Jesus Christ. That is the particular way Christians have to “emphasize deterrence.”
Rebate Rebound
American taxpayers: what will you do with your tax rebate? Virtually every taxpayer will get one within a few month’s time. A reader sent us a suggestion that we heartily commend to your attention.
The tax rebate is intended to stimulate the economy by giving Americans an extra chunk of money to spend on “durable goods.” Perhaps we can stretch the term beyond the government’s intention. Human life is certainly a good, and it is durable. But in various areas of the world this “durability” is in jeopardy. How about sending your refund to some organization dedicated to caring for the hungry or the homeless or the sick—those who are starving in Bangladesh or Africa, for intance, or the suffering refugees in Indochina? Evangelicals have often been charged with neglecting bodies in their zeal for winning souls. Here is a good opportunity for them to demonstrate their concern for the bodily needs of people, to respond generously and sacrificially for the sake of Christ.
God will look with delight upon his people who do this. It will indicate to him their desire to obey his commandments, the second greatest of which is to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. The giving should not be based upon the idea that God will do something for us in return. That may occur, but even if we were sure it would not, we should nevertheless obey. The satisfaction of walking obediently is reward enough.
By Faith …
The lives of the great heroes of the faith catalogued in Hebrews 11 have had an impact for good on millions of readers of Scripture. But Christian heroism did not end when the canon of Scripture was closed, and many other writers have given us inspiring accounts of latter-day heroes. A recent example is Richard Hasler’s Journey With David Brainerd, put out in paperback by InterVarsity Press.
Brainerd was a missionary to the American Indians. He came to a point at which he thought of himself as a failure, and he was about to return home, convinced that he was wasting his supporters’ money. He felt it was “unjust to spend money consecrated to religious uses, only to civilize the Indians, and bring them to an external profession of Christianity.…”
Then God broke through in an amazing way among some Indians in New Jersey. Their response to the preaching of the Gospel was startling and unexpected, and a church was begun. Brainerd was quick to recognize the social implications of his mission. He raised money to buy land where the Indians could plant crops and hunt, and saw to the construction of a church, a school, an infirmary, and a carpentry shop.
Brainerd wrote in his diary, as a result of that experience, of God’s power to break through apparent failure and accomplish his purposes. “It is good to follow the path of duty,” he wrote, “though in the midst of darkness and discouragement.”
Brainerd died young, at twenty-nine, from tuberculosis. But that short life has inspired many, including John Wesley. Deeply moved by the example of this apostle to the Indians, Wesley made this recommendation: “Let every preacher read carefully over the life of David Brainerd. Let us be followers of him, as he was of Christ, in absolute self-devotion, in total deafness to the world and in fervent love to God and man.”
